E 99 
,P9 U5 
Copy 2 

FT MEfiDE 
GenCo11 



















































































































































































































































































































































4 




t 





















I 













s 































PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 


COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

THIRD SESSION 

ON 


S. 6085 

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF TRUSTS FROM 
THE PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO 


FEBRUARY 13, 1913 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 

y Z. . 








EM 

TsU 


D, OF D. 
MAR 20 1913 







PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


3 


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1913. 

Committee on Indian Affairs, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, D. 0. 

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m. 

Present: Senators Gamble (chairman), Clapp, Page, Owen, Cham¬ 
berlain, and Ashurst. 

Also present: Senator Catron, Mr. F. H. Abbott, Mr. George 
Curry, M. C. r Mr. Francis T. Wilson, Father Ketcham, and a dele¬ 
gation of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. The 
meeting is called this morning especially to take up bill S. 6085, to 
authorize the acceptance of trusts from the Pueblo Indians of New 
Mexico. 

The bill reads as follows: 

A BILL To authorize the acceptance of trusts from the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, author¬ 
ized to accept on behalf of the United States as trustee all such lands, tenements, and 
hereditaments as may be conveyed to the United States by any of the communities or 
villages of Pueblo Indians in New Mexico by trust, deed, or otherwise: Provided , 
That the period for which such trusts shall be accepted shall be twenty-five years or 
more, as may be determined by the respective pueblos in each case. 

Sec. 2. That all such lands which may be conveyed to the United States in trust 
under this act shall be subject to the laws governing Indian country, and the Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior is hereby authorized to make and enforce such regulations as may 
be necessary and proper for the administration of the trust or trusts accepted by him 
on behalf of the United States. 

Sec. 3. That at the expiration of any trust given in accordance with the provisions 
of this act the Secretary of the Interior may accept a renewal of such trust for such 
period as may be agreed upon by him and the pueblo. 

This bill was introduced on April 2, 1912, by the chairman of the 
committee. The draft was approved by the Interior Department, 
and submitted to me, accompanied by the following communication 
addressed to myself as chairman of the committee, dated March 28, 
1912. As the communication is short, I will read it, so that we may 
have the provisions of the measure as well as the views of the depart¬ 
ment thereon. 

The letter is as follows: 

Department of the Interior, 

Washington, March 28, 1912 • 

Hon. Robert J. Gamble, 

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate. 

Sir: By direction of the President I have the honor to transmit herewith a draft 
of a bill to authorize the acceptance on behalf of the United States of the lands of the 
Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, to be held in trust and administered as are other 
Indian lands, by the Secretary of the Interior. 


3 



4 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


The Pueblo Indians own their lands in fee under patents from the United 
States confirming grants made by Spain and Mexico. Much of the lands originally 
used by these Indians has been lost to them by reason of adverse possession and 
alienation by the chief men of the respective pueblos. The department has recently, 
through a special attorney, been making efforts to recover the lands of which the 
Indians have been illegally deprived. It is believed that these Indians are not 
sufficiently advanced in civilization to care for their own interests in a manner that 
will be for their own advancement and that it would be of great benefit to them and 
assist the department in its efforts in their behalf if their lands were held by the 
United States in trust. 

The matter was recently taken up by an inspector of the department, and 10 pueblos, 
with an approximate population of 4,340, expressed a desire to deed their lands to 
the United States in trust; 2 pueblos, with a population of about 223, voted in the 
negative; and 5 with a population of about 1,300, are undecided. 

The department believes that if Congress would authorize the acceptance, on behalf 
of the Government, of trusts from the Pueblo Indians, and a few of the pueblos were 
to convey their lands to the United States in trust to be administered as other Indian 
lands, the beneficial results would be so apparent that all the other pueblos would 
desire to put their lands under the same protection. 

Respectfully, Samuel Adams, 

First Assistant Secretary. 

Senator Catron is here, and the representatives of the tribe. Mr. 
Commissioner Abbott, if you have any suggestions to make we will 
be glad to hear from you. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say in just a sentence or two 
that Congress has recognized these people as Indians and as wards 
of the Government for more than 50 years; Congress has made appro¬ 
priations to maintain schools, and to employ farmers and matrons 
to aid them toward their civilization. Congress has, as recently as 
1905, set apart executive order reservations to provide grazing 
ground and timber lands for several of these pueblos. In the case of 
Zuni, one of these pueblos, the Indians are handled in exactly the same 
way. that tribal Indians throughout the country are handled, and their 
affairs are in better condition to-day than the affairs of the pueblos, 
who are represented by these people here. 

The dependent condition of these people was recognized when the 
constitution of New Mexico was adopted, and in section 2, article 21, 
in the compact with the United States, it provided among other things: 

That nothing herein shall preclude this State from taxing as other lands and property 
are taxed any lands and other property outside of an Indian reservation owned or held 
by any Indian save and except such lands as have been granted or acquired as afore¬ 
said, or as may be granted or confirmed to any Indian or Indians under any act of Con¬ 
gress, but all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by this State so long and to 
such extent as the Congress of the United States has prescribed or may hereafter 
prescribe. 

This section of the constitution of New Mexico recognizes the 
necessity of exempting the land of these Pueblo Indians from taxation. 

I am not going to extend my remarks any farther, Mr. Chairman, 
but I think your time will be saved by having Mr. Wilson, the attor¬ 
ney for the Pueblos, state briefly the substance of the petitions which 
have been presented to the department conveying to the Secretary 
of Ihe Interior about 50,000 acres of this land, and asking on behalf 
of certain other Pueblos, which have not made an actual convey¬ 
ance, that the Secretary take over their lands in trust in the same 
manner. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 5 

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS T. WILSON, SPECIAL ATTORNEY FOR 
THE PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 

The Chairman. What position do you occupy, Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Wilson. Special attorney for the Pueblo Indians of New 
Mexico. 

The Chairman. And you are designated by the Secretary of the 
Interior as such? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And, as a matter of information, is your compensa¬ 
tion paid by the Government or is it taken from the funds of the 
Pueblos ? 

Mr. Wilson. It is paid by the Government under an appropriation 
made by Congress. 

The Chairman. And how long have you occupied that position ? 

Mr. Wilson. Nearly four years. 

The Chairman. And you have been in that particular country and 
associated with these Indians for that time ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Chamberlain. Let me ask you this, Mr. Wilson: Are you 
recognized by the Indians themselves as their friend, or are you 
recognized as the representative of the Government, that may be 
adverse to them ? I do not know anything about this situation, but 
I should like to know about it. 

Mr. Wilson. I think that practically universally I am recognized 
as their friend. I represented them in a great deal of litigation down 
there, and they always come to me with very few exceptions, and 
those exceptions are individual exceptions, not the community of any 
Pueblo. 

The Chairman. I should like to make one" or two further inter¬ 
rogatories. What is the total number of the Pueblo Indians in New 
Mexico ? 

Mr. Wilson. The census of 1910 showed in the neighborhood of 
6,000 Pueblo Indians, not including the Zuni, which is on a Govern¬ 
ment reservation, not on their patent lands. 

The Chairman. Are the Zuni associated with the Pueblos? 

Mr. Wilson. They are Pueblo Indians. 

The Chairman. And how many are there of those ? 

Mr. Wilson. There are about 1,400 of those. My figures may 
not be strictly accurate, but that is as near as I remember from the 
census of 1910. 

The Chairman. What is the area of the lands belonging to the 
Pueblos and the Zunis combined ? 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, we have to distinguish between their 
patented lands and Executive-order reservations. Of patented lands 
the Pueblos have in fee about 765,000 acres. They have practically 
400,000 acres of Executive-order reservations, in addition to that. 

The Chairman. What you refer to as patents in fee I assume that 
was conveyed to these Indians through the Mexican and Spanish 
grants, and confirmed to them by the United States ? 

Mr. Wilson. That is the fact; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the Executive-order reservations are the 
reservations added to by Executive orders issued by the President 
of the United States ? 


6 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Wilson. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Be as brief as you can, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Wilson. I think it should be stated at the outset that this 
matter has been before the Pueblo Indians for a matter of three years. 
It has been talked over amongst them, and they have had a great 
deal of information as to their status under a trust agreement laid 
before them. They had not felt the importance of this proposition 
until about a year ago, when New Mexico became a State. At that 
time it was brought home to them that unless they did this they 
would be in a great danger of being subjected exclusively to the 
jurisdiction of the State, and that the Government authority and 
supervision would be withdrawn from them. They felt that would 
be extremely detrimental to them, and in view of the fact that the 
State authorities might not take the same interest in them as the 
Government has shown they deemed it wise to place their land where 
the Federal Government would have practically exclusive jurisdiction 
and .control over them and their property. 

Last summer, in July, all the Pueblos came to Santa Fe and met 
by their representatives, and practically all at that time agreed upon 
this proposition, with the exception of two very small ones which 
dissented. In pursuance of the plans at that time formulated amongst 
them, three Pueblos about a month ago deeded to the Government 
their lands, the Pueblos of Santa Clara, of Cochiti, and of Taos, and 
they have come here with those of us ready to present to the Secretary 
of the Interior, and asking Congress to give the Secretary of the 
Interior the necessary authority to accept those trusts. 

The Chairman. What area is covered by the deeds of those three 
Pueblos ? 

Mr. Wilson. About 50,000 acres. That is as close as we can come 
to it, because we do not know just how much may have been lost by 
alienation within the boundaries of the grants which they deed. 

There are three main purposes, so far as the Indians are concerned, 
which actuated them to do this. The first is that they want to be in 
a position where for the next 25 years they can not alienate their 
property. That is to say, they desire to prevent improvident aliena¬ 
tions of their land which would undoubtedly result if the Government 
influence and control was withdrawn from them, because the Pueblo 
Indian at the present time has not reached a stage where he can realize 
the value of his lands in money, nor can he realize the value of any of 
his property in money. They live by barter, by agriculture, and they 
have not come to a stage of education at this time where they can 
appreciate what a dollar is worth and what their land is worth, and 
if they should sell their land, or if by other means their lands should 
be taken from them, it would simply mean that the Pueblo Indians 
would be thrown back upon the Government exactly as the Mission 
Indians of California were some years ago. They want to avert that, 
and for that purpose they are making these deeds. 

The question of taxation also enters into this matter. We are not 
here, as has been represented, solely for the purpose of escaping tax¬ 
ation, if it should be held by the courts that the provision of the 
enabling act is unconstitutional. We do feel, however, that by this 
act we may assist the Government in coming to the decision that this 
exemption is a proper exemption, because we feel that the people of 
the Pueblo Indians, not having been taxed under any Government 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


7 


preceding the United States, and not having been taxed by the United 
States, they should be given time to turn around, to put themselves 
in a position where they can appreciate the fact that they have to 
pay taxes, and that if they do not pay them their lands will be sold for 
delinquent taxes. 

As I stated, they have never paid taxes. Now, if suddenly the 
courts should decide that they were subject to taxation and the State 
of New Mexico should tax them, Laguna with 118,000 acres and 
Isleta with 172,000 acres of patented land could not possibly sustain 
the burden. There could be but one result, and that would be that 
their lands would be sold for delinquent taxes in a very few years after 
the delinquent taxes were imposed upon them. 

We are here for the purpose of indicating our needs and necessities 
in that respect. 

The third reason is this: We are especially anxious to have the 
Federal laws applicable to the liquor traffic administered in con¬ 
nection with the Pueblo Indians. The State law which we have 
is not effectively enforced. In fact, it is not enforced at all, and 
the result is that the liquor traffic is gaining amongst the Pueblos. 
Their young men, like all Indians, do not seem to be able to escape 
the temptations of liquor. And the result is that there is more 
drunkenness at the present day among the Pueblo Indians than 
there ever has been in their history. This is a natural result of 
the fact that when we were a Territory the United States, in a way, 
had more immediate supervision over them and could see that the 
laws were more strictly enforced. At the present time they are 
between two commissions: First, the State law, which is not enforced^ 
and the Federal law, which the courts of New Mexico have said 
could not be enforced. They want to give their lands over in trust 
to the Secretary of the Interior, in the hope that this situation may 
be obviated and they may be enabled to have laws applicable to 
the liquor traffic enforced by the United States amongst their people. 

I may mention that there are a number of other matters of minor 
consideration in the main. For instance, the Government has 
appropriated money year after year for sanitation amongst them. 
The medical corps of the Indian Office is stamping out contagious 
diseases, trachoma, and tuberculosis. We have a very fine tuber¬ 
culosis sanitarium at Laguna. All those things the people of 
the Pueblos want to have continued amongst them, and they 
feel that if their lands are not in trust with the United States that 
Congress may possibly say that there should not be any divided 
jurisdiction in this matter; that the State or the Federal authority, 
one or the other, must have complete jurisdiction. If the State 
is held to have jurisdiction over these people, Congress would feel 
that it should not appropriate money for these purposes. 

The irrigation situation is one which is most vital to them. 

Senator Catron. Before going into that, Mr. Wilson, I should 
like to ask a question on your other proposition. Do you claim 
that by this act these Indians will be taken entirely, as citizens 
and everything else, from under the control of the State and put 
under the control of the Government of the United States? Is 
that your object in this matter? 

Mr. Wilson. That was the object, of course, and I believe to a 
very great extent it will be achieved by this transaction. 


8 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Senator Chamberlain. That does not deprive the Indian of citi¬ 
zenship—the fact that he is within the jurisdiction of the United 
States ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. 

Senator Chamberlain. He is a resident of a reservation ? 

Mr. Wilson. That is very true. The courts have held very 
recently- 

Senator Chamberlain. In other words, in Oregon, where the Indians 
are on reservations, they are still citizens and entitled to all privileges 
as such. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Chamberlain. In your answer to Senator Catron, then, 
I do not understand you to claim you expect to have their rights as 
citizens taken away from them ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir; not by any means. In fact, the courts have 
held very recently, as probably the committee is well aware, that 
the condition of guardian and ward is not interfered with by the 
mere fact that an Indian is a citizen. 

Just a few words upon the irrigation proposition. I wish to say 
that down there the water is everything to the Indian. If he does 
not have his irrigation his crops will fail and he loses his means of 
support. The Government has spent a great deal of money there 
lately in furnishing us irrigation systems, in seeing that they get 
permanent head gates installed, that their head gates are properly 
constructed. This is, of course, on the patented lands of the Pueblo 
Indians. If, now, the Government has no control over those pat¬ 
ented lands and the Indians can sell them at any time, the improve¬ 
ments go with the land, and Congress will not appropriate money for 
those purposes unless the land is in a position for Congress to con¬ 
trol, and unless the land is so that the Secretary of the Interior shall 
say so, that you shall not sell that, and you shall not sell that, with¬ 
out my permission, because the Government is investing its money 
there for the Indians, not for the benefit of somebody else who might 
purchase those lands, or the irrigation proposition. That, in sub¬ 
stance, is the real reason why these men are here. 

Mr. Curry. I should like to ask Mr. Wilson one question. 

The Chairman. You may ask him a question. 

Mr. Curry. Do these Indians come here at the expense of the 
Government or at their own expense ? 

Mr. Wilson. They paid their own expenses. Each Pueblo has 
contributed to the expense of its delegate. 

Mr. Curry. I understood you to say, in your statement, that these 
Indians do not have a -proper appreciation of the value of money; 
that is, as corresponding with property, etc. ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. That is to say, land to them does not convey 
the same idea as it does to us, in the real value of money. 

Mr. Curry. How long have you lived in New Mexico ? 

Mr. Wilson. I have been living there a little over five years— 
nearly six years. 

The Chairman. Mr. Wilson, in your reference to the ability of the 
Indians to pay taxes, what is the comparative standing of the Indians 
with their white neighbors there as to the amount of property which 
they have and their ability to pay taxes ? 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


9 


Mr. Wilson. They are rich in land, but poor in nearly everything 
else. The Government has been giving them on time pavments, 
under the rules of the Indian Office, wagons and stock of late, and 
they are accumulating something by that means; but they do not 
raise a great deal of produce for sale. They raise produce for their 
own sustenance and that of their families, but they have very little 
money in circulation among them. That is true of all of them. Of 
course, there are some exceptions; but there are none of the Pueblos 
who know very much about the value of a dollar or have very many 
dollars in their own possession. 

The Chairman. What is the condition of these lands belonging to 
the Pueblo Indians ?. Are they in a compact tract, or are they segre¬ 
gated? Are the white people living amongst them, and the white 
people owning lands ? 

Mr. Wilson. On nearly every grant there are some white people 
who have either acquired title by adverse possession or have pur¬ 
chased from individual Indians many years ago. The lands are all 
in compact tracts. 

The Chairman. What is the condition there on those reservations 
as affecting the Indians, and also as affecting white settlers, in regard 
to schools, and the opportunity for education ? 

Mr. Wilson. The Indians all have their own Government schools. 
Each pueblo has a day school, maintained and sustained by the 
Government, to which no white children or Mexican children are per¬ 
mitted to go. The Mexican and the white children in the neighbor¬ 
hood of these pueblos do not begin to have the educational advan¬ 
tages which the Pueblos have now. 

The Chairman. That is, the Mexican and the white children do not 
have the advantages ? 

Mr. Wilson. Not in the vicinity of the pueblos. 

The Chairman. What opportunities are there for white and Mexi¬ 
can children located on these particular tracts ? 

Mr. Wilson. They probably go to school in the neighborhood of 
three or four months a year, while the Pueblo children go to school, 
I imagine, seven or eight months in a year. 

The Chairman. In what way are these white and Mexican schools 
maintained ? 

Mr. Wilson. By the State. 

The Chairman. By local taxation? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; by local taxation. 

The Chairman. Have the Pueblo lands so far been taxed for local 
government ? 

Mr. Wilson. They never have been taxed. They were taxed in 
the county of Taos. ~ The pueblo of Taos, in the county of Taos, was 
taxed in 1904, and that tax was sustained by the supreme court of 
the Territory, and the Indians sent a delegation to Washington, and 
in the law of 1905, the appropriation bill of 1905, for the Pueblo 
Indians, they were exempted from taxation, past, present, and future, 
as far as that act could go in that respect. 

The Chairman. Suppose the proposition asked for in the bill is 
carried out and these lands of the Pueblos are conveyed to the Gov¬ 
ernment in trust, what condition would it leave the Mexican and the 
white settlers in, in regard to the maintaining of a local government 
and the sustaining of the schools to provide for education ? 


10 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Wilson. It would not affect them in the slightest, Mr. Chair¬ 
man. The only purpose of this is that the condition which has always 
existed there as to the Pueblo Indians should be continued. That is 
to say, that the control which the Government has had over them 
in the past should be continued in the future until the 25-year period 
has expired. 

Senator Catron. May I ask a question ? 

The Chairman . Y es. 

Senator Catron. Mr. Wilson, do you admit, for instance, that the 
town of Taos, which is the county seat of Taos County, and the court¬ 
house and everything, within the exterior limits of that Pueblo land, 
that those people own their lands as against the Indians ? 

Mr. Wilson. It was so declared by the governor general of Mexico, 
before the United States acquired the land under the plan of Iguala. 

Senator Catron. And you admit that the people of Pena Blanca- 

Mr. Wilson. That had always been conducted by the Mexican 
Government. 

Senator Catron. Do you admit that Espanola and Santa Cruz- 

Mr. Wilson. Santa Cruz I do, but not Espanola. 

Senator Catron. And that those Indians have been occupying for 
200 years some portion of the town—that portion that has been occu¬ 
pied that length of time ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not know that it has been 200 years. I doubt 
that. 

Senator Catron. I know it has been 200 years, because I can show 
deeds that old. 

The Chairman. You referred in your observations, Mr. Wilson, to 
the effect of intoxicants and the increase of the liquor habit among 
the Pueblo Indians. What was the condition in regard to the use of 
intoxicants during the Territorial government ? 

Mr. Wilson. It was better, Mr. Chairman, for the reason that the 
United States while we were a Territory had a more direct hand on 
the Territorial affairs than it has and will have since it became a 
State. The Pueblos always felt that they had the Government more 
nearly able to protect them, as they did in the taxation matter, and 
more nearly able to enforce the laws of the United States while they 
were applicable than they can since New Mexico has become a State 
That was shown particularly in the enforcement of the State law 
prohibiting the sale of liquor to the Pueblo Indians. I can state a 
particular instance, if you would care to have it. In 1908 we 
attempted to present some cases under the Territorial statute pro¬ 
hibiting the sale of liquor to the Pueblo Indians in one of the districts 
of New Mexico. We had great difficulty until the governor of the 
Territory was asked to help, and he did help in a great many respects, 
and we finally had action upon it and secured four convictions for 
the sale of liquor to a certain Pueblo. 

Senator Catron. That was under the State law ? 

Mr. Wilson. Under the Territorial law. 

The Chairman. Under the Territorial law? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. Under the State law we had a sample of 
what is going to happen—last fall, in October. The foreman of the 
grand jury of the county of Taos refused to subpoena witnesses under 
the State law, and we had four excellent cases which we could have 




PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


11 


proven. Nothing came of them. We could not even get before the 
grand jury. 

The Chairman. In what way is the law different under the State 
government than it was under the Territorial government ? 

L Mr. Wilson. It is the same law. 

piThe Chairman. Then the criticism might be made rather against 
the officials than against the law, could it not ? 

Mr. Wilson. It is the enforcement of the law; yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. Let me ask you a question right there. You say 
you had four cases at Taos for which the foreman of the grand jury 
refused to subpoena witnesses. You are aware of the fact that there 
is no law requiring or permitting the foreman of a grand jury to 
subpoena any witness, are you not ? 

Mr. Wilson. I am aware of the fact- 

Senator Catron. That it has to be done by the district attorney, 
and that the court has authority to direct all those matters ? 

Mr. Wilson. I am aware of the fact that I went to the district 
attorney personally and asked him to have this done, and he said the 
foreman of the grand jury would not subpoena them. We went to 
the foreman of the grand jury ourselves and he also refused. 

Senator Catron. Why did you not apply to the court ? 

Mr. Wilson. I applied to Judge Leib, and he said he would do any¬ 
thing in the world that he could if he could get the district attorney 
to act. The district attorney said this, that if the witnesses went 
before the grand jury he was informed by the foreman that they 
would not find an indictment. In other words, it made no difference 
whether we went before him or not. 

Senator Catron. That was a case to be determined after the wit¬ 
nesses appeared, was it not ? 

Mr. Wilson. I only state what was told us. We know we did not 
get before the grand jury. 

Senator Catron. You stated that Judge Leib said he would do 
anything he could. What did he do ? 

Mr. WipsoN. He tried to get the foreman to give us a hearing. 

Senator Catron. Did he call in the district attorney and ask him 
to subpoena those witnesses ? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not know. I did not ask him. It was none of 
my business. 

Senator Catron. You were there ? 

Mr. Wilson. I was there personally. 

Senator Catron. And you do not know what he did ? 

Mr. Wilson. No. 

Senator Chamberlain. You know you did not get the witnesses? 

Mr. Wilson. No; we did not get them there. I would not inter¬ 
fere with the court in such matter. He expressed his willingness, but 
the objection was made that the grand jury would not find an indict¬ 
ment if we did get the witnesses before them. 

The Chairman. If I understood you correctly, the same laws are 
in force in the State as they were under the Territorial condition in 
regard to the sale and use of intoxicating liquors ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the same laws would apply in both cases ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 



12 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Senator Chamberlain. The suggestion has been made now that 
you ought to have gone to the court for relief. What relief could 
the court have given you if the district attorney and the foreman of 
the grand jury refused to give you relief? 

Mr. Wilson. The court could not have relieved it. 

Mr. Curry. Could not the court issue subpoenas ? 

Mr. Wilson. It could issue subpoenas on evidence given by the 
district attorney. The court can not act unless the prosecuting 
attorney requests it. 

Senator Catron. Yes, it can. 

Senator Chamberlain. From what Mr. Wilson says the. prose¬ 
cuting attorney would not have acted if you had heard the witnesses ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Chamberlain. So the court was practically powerless 
unless proceedings were had to oust the district attorney ? 

Mr. Wilson. That is correct. 

Senator Catron. Who is your district attorney ? 

Mr. Wilson. He has just been elected. I have forgotten his 
name. He is a young man from Raton. 

Mr. Curry. His name is Remly. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Chamberlain. I do not know a thing about conditions 
there, and I am trying to get the truth about it. Is it a political 
condition that interferes with justice down there, or is it a disposition 
on the part of some people to take an advantage of the Indians ? 

Mr. Wilson. It .is a prejudice among the local people against the 
Indians. You will find whenever we get into litigation down there 
and an Indian is a party, the old feeling which has more or less ex¬ 
isted between the Mexicans and the Indians crops out, and we never 
have very much success if we have to go before a jury. 

Senator Chamberlain. And the affairs of the State are prac¬ 
tically in the hands of Mexicans ? 

Mr. Wilson. The grand jury at Taos is entirely Mexican. There 
was not an Indian on that grand jury. 

Mr. Curry. He refers to that particular locality. 

Mr. Wilson. I refer to that particular locality in which the Pueb¬ 
los are unfortunately placed, more or less. 

Senator Chamberlain. If the condition is true in any locality it 
is a bad condition- 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Chamberlain. If the Indians' rights are to be adjudi¬ 
cated by an adverse jury. 

Mr. Wilson. Or by State courts, in other words, where those 
juries sit. Our object in that respect is to get, if we can, the juris¬ 
diction in the district court for the State of New Mexico. So, if we 
draw a jury it is drawn from all over the State of New Mexico, and 
we will get a jury which will not have the bias which a jury drawn 
from Taos or some local jurisdiction would have. 

Senator Chamberlain. In other words, there would be a chance 
to get the jury outside of the vicinage ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Ashurst. If these lands were transferred to the Secretary 
of the Interior as you have requested, would not that convert these 
lands into what is known in law as Indian country ? 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


13 


Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Senator Ashurst. And you think that if these lands were converted 
into what is called in law “ Indian country,” the United States Gov¬ 
ernment would have the power to punish illegal sales of liquor? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; because the law prohibits the introduction of 
liquor into Indian country. 

Senator Ashurst. Which term has a well-defined meaning—- 
“Indian country?” 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; that is precisely what we are aiming at in this 
proposition. 

The Chairman. You state that since the admission of the State 
there has been an increase in the use of intoxicants amongst the 
Indians ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; unfortunately. 

The Chairman. Also the same law is in force? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

The Chairman. You feel, however, that the State authorities have 
not prosecuted as they did under the Territorial condition ? 

Mr. Wilson. That is the case exactly. 

The Chairman. Have you down there any provision where the 
Stated attorney or district attorney fails to prosecute, to do his duty, 
that the governor can appoint some one to act in his place so that the 
laws may be enforced ? 

Mr. Wilson. I think that the court itself might appoint a special 
district attorney, but you understand, Mr. Chairman, I am not reflect¬ 
ing upon the judiciary of New Mexico or upon the prosecuting 
attorney. It is a condition there over which they probably have no 
control. If a grand jury will not act, or if a petit jury will bring in 
a verdict of not guilty when the facts laid before them show that a 
verdict of guilty should be sent in, it is a hopeless proposition for the 
court and for the prosecuting attorney. I think we have as high- 
grade men there on our district bench in New Mexico as any State 
can boast of, but these are conditions which they can not overcome; it 
is impossible. The local conditions will overcome anything that tl^e 
court or the local prosecuting attorney can do in the way of trying to 
work out justice for the Indians. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further you wish to say, Mr. 
Wilson ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who else wishes to be heard? 

Mr. Wilson. I think I might suggest that we have one or two men 
amongst the Indians who are perfectly able to present their own 
cause in a manner which will be more convincing, perhaps, than 
anything I have said, and if the chairman would be so kind, and it is 
the proper time, I should like to have one or two of them called upon. 

The Chairman. Which ones do you desire to speak? 

Mr. Wilson. I should like to have first Mr. Pablo Abeita, of the 
pueblo of Isleta. This pueblo is a pueblo of about 1,057 population, 
and owns about 172,000 acres of patented land. 

Senator Chamberlain. Mr. Wilson, before you leave, let me ask 
you this: Do the State authorities or the local civil authorities 
oppose this movement upon the part of the Indians ? 

Mr. Wilson. I regret to state that the legislature has passed a 
resolution very recently condemning us for advocating this move. 


14 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Senator Chamberlain. Condemning the Indians or condemning 
you ? 

Mr. Wilson. Condemning the Indians, and, of course, inferen- 
tially, myself, because I have been working up tliis matter very hard. 

Senator Catron. They did not condemn you. 

Mr. Wilson. I did not say mentioning my name, but I said infer- 
entially condemning me, but it is a protest against this particular 
act on the part of the Indians. It was passed very recently, since 
we have been here. 

Senator Chamberlain. Is the majority of the membership of that 
legislature composed of Mexicans ? 

Mr. Wilson. In the house the majority is Mexicans, but in the 
senate it is not. 

Mr. Curry. What are known as the Anglo-Saxons, the Americans, 
have the majority in both houses. 

Mr. Wilson. How close a majority? 

Mr. Curry. I think there are 19 Spanish Americans and 30 Anglo- 
Saxons in the House, and how many in the senate, Senator Catron ? 

Senator Catron. There are only two or three of Mexican origin 
in the Senate. 

Mr. Curry. There was a great deal more than two-thirds of the 
Legislature of New Mexico born in this country outside of New 
Mexico. 

Mr. Wilson. I might say from the recitals in that resolution that 
it is quite evident they do not understand what we are trying to do 
at all. 

Senator Chamberlain. That is, in the legislative resolution? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. We never had an opportunity to be heard 
before the legislative committee authorized to draw up this resolu¬ 
tion. We never had an opportunity down there. 

Senator Chamberlain. Do you know who was heard by the legis¬ 
lative committee ? 

Mr. Wilson. The resolution was introduced by Mr. C. C. Catron 
in the house. 

Senator Chamberlain. Who is he? 

Senator Catron. He is my son. 

Senator Chamberlain. So far as your knowledge goes, the Pueblos 
had no hearing at all ? 

Mr. Wilson. We never had any hearing at all in the matter. 

Senator Chamberlain. In order to get this properly in the record 
I think we might have this resolution that he refers to inserted now. 

The Chairman. Yes; although the resolution has not been for¬ 
mally referred to the committee. 

Senator Catron. I was informed that they had sent a copy. 

Mr. Fergusson. I have had sent to me the resolutions in a formal 
way and desire to file them with this committee. 

Senator Chamberlain. That will be all right, then. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, I have brought here the copy that 
was sent officially to the Secretary of the Interior, for the purpose of 
making it a part of the record. 

The Chairman. I think you had better put that in the record. 

Mr. Fergusson. I should like to state on this particular point that 
I received a copy of these resolutions of the legislature protesting 
against this, but if the original is here, that copy sent to the Secretary 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


15 


of the Interior, that may perhaps be better. I have also received a 

protest signed by Mr. - , who many years ago, as a 

young man, married a Pueblo Indian and has become affiliated with 
them. He is a highly educated man and an engineer. I also have a 
letter from a man named Pratt. And I have a letter here—I did 
not expect to be here to-day—showing the other side. One of them 
writes to me that he has nine children by an Indian wife, and he is 
very much opposed to this. I state that to show you what I have 
pro and con. There is a division down there on the subject. 

The Chairman. Are you acquainted with Pedro J. Baca ? 

Mr. Fergusson. I do not remember the name. Is his name 
signed to that paper you have [indicating] ? 

The Chairman. Yes. A communication was received by the chair¬ 
man of the committee, dated February 1, Pueblo of Santa Clara, 
Espanola, N. Mex., addressed to the Indian Committees of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, and signed by the party named. 

Mr. Fergusson. I do not know him personally. The names are 
very similar. Parhaps Senator Catron would know him, as he is 
better acquainted in that section of the State than I am. 

I will bring those letters over, with the permission of the chairman, 
and file them. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Catron. Bring your copy of the resolution, so they can 
use it. 

Mr. Fergusson. I did not bring it with me. I did not expect to 
be here. 

The Chairman. As suggested by the commissioner, he will submit 
the official copy sent to the Secretary of the Interior, and that will 
appear in the record. 

Mr. Curry. The copy I received from the legislature is filed in the 
House of Representatives. It has been referred there to the Com¬ 
mittee on Indian Affairs. 

Senator Chamberlain. The original is here. That ends it. 

Senator Catron. Leave the original, and that will be sufficient. 

The resolution of the Legislature of New Mexico referred to is as 
follows: 

State op New Mexico, 

County of Santa Fe, ss: 

We, the undersigned, president and chief clerk of the Senate, do hereby certify that 
the attached is a full, true, and correct copy of house joint resolution No. 12, which 
passed the senate on February 5, 1913, with the following vote, to wit: 

Ayes: Abeytia, Alldredge, Bowman, Burns, Clark, Crampton, Gallegos, Hartt, 
Hinkle, Holt, Ilfeld, Miera, Navarro, Page, Pankey, Romero, Sulzer, Walton, 18. 

Nays: Barth, Evans, McCoy, Mabry, 4. 

Paired: Doepp, Laughren, 2. . 

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this 6th day of February, A. D. 
1913. 

E. C. He Baca, 

President of the Senate. 

r SEA L.1 Isidoro Armijo, 

Chief Clerk of the Senate. 




16 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


House joint resolution No. 12. 

Whereas it has been brought to the attention of the Legislature of the State of New 
Mexico that officials of a few pueblos of New Mexico are now en route to Washington, 
D. C., for the purpose of presenting to the Secretary of the Interior of the United 
States a plan under which an attempt will be made to convey the pueblo grant 
lands to the United States to be held in trust for 25 years, and to make the Pueblo 
Indians wards of the Government, in order to avoid the payment of taxes upon 
their lands; and 

Whereas the titles to said pueblo grants are fee simple titles in the pueblos dating 
back to 1689, and are guaranteed to the pueblos by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; 
and 

Whereas said grants are community grants of town grants, each having located within 
its boundaries a town inhabited by what are commonly known as Pueblo Indians, 
said town being the owner of all the property within said grant which has not been 
allotted in severalty; and 

Whereas the Congress of the United States by admitting New Mexico into the Union, 
ceded jurisdiction over all grants and private lands to the State of New Mexico; and 
Whereas the said Pueblo Indians are citizens of the United States and of the State of 
New Mexico, as has been repeatedly decided by the courts of New Mexico; and 
Whereas the State of New Mexico, by its constitution, article 8, section 7, has 
exempted properties of towns from taxation; and 
Whereas certain portions of said Pueblo grants have been allotted to individual mem¬ 
bers of the Pueblos, and have become segregated from the grant lands and are now 
held in severalty by such individuals, and have been cultivated and improved; 
and 

Whereas other portions of the said town grants have been sold to citizens of the State 
of New Mexico other than members of the Pueblos, who have settled upon such lands 
so sold, and by cultivation and improvements have made the same valuable; and 
Whereas a considerable part of said lands so improved and cultivated have for many 
years been returned for taxation; and 

Whereas the transfer of the title in trust of such lands to the Government of the 
United States would not exempt such lands from taxation by the State if they are 
in fact taxable; and 

Whereas such action would entirely change the customs of the said Pueblo Indians 
as well as their quasi municipal form of government; and 
Whereas many of the Pueblos are opposed to such interference with their affairs and 
prefer to remain citizens of New Mexico and to retain their lands and customs as 
they have had them since 1689; and 

Whereas the said Pueblo officials may be proceeding under a misapprehension of the 
status of the Pueblo grant with respect to their taxability and are spending time 
and money to no purpose; and 

Whereas the acquisition by the National Government of titles to the lands of any class 
of citizens of a State for any except public governmental purposes, would be a gross 
and unwarranted invasion of the right of the State to control its own citizens and 
their property; Therefore be it 

Resolved by the Legislature of New Mexico, That it disapproves of and protests against 
the contemplated transfer of Pueblo lands to the United States, or to any officer 
thereof, for any purpose whatever. 

We, Roman L. Baca, speaker, and Frank Staplin, chief clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, First Legislature, of the State of New Mexico, hereby certify that the above 
and foregoing is a true and correct copy of house joint resolution No. 12, which was 
passed by the said house this 5th day of February, 1913, by a vote of 43 for to none 
against. 

Roman L. Baca, 
Speaker of House. 

Frank Staplin, 

Chief Clerk of House. 

Father Ketcham. Pedro J. Baca is from the Santa Clara Pueblo. 
He wrote me a letter the other day. 

Senator Catron. Is he an Indian ? 

Father Ketcham. He is an Indian. A letter was written me by 
Miss Clara True, who lives near this Pueblo, and she sent me the letter 
also. She says there is a division in the Pueblos, but she indicates 
very clearly in her letter that she believes there ought to be some 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


17 


kind of a compromise. I rather think she understands this opposition 
as well or better than Baca. She seems to favor some kind of a move 
to protect the Indians, but indicates a compromise. She indicates 
Baca as being the leader of this opposition. 

.Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I might state, in order that the record 
might be clear on that point, that the Santa Clara Pueblo executed 
one of these deeds which I have with me, and at the meeting when 
that act was authorized by a council there were 52 out of 56 adult 
male Indians in the Pueblo who authorized it, and there were no dis¬ 
senting voices. Pedro J. Baca and one or two others were not pres¬ 
ent, and I take it, therefore, that there were only two or three in the 
Pueblo who were opposed to it while there were 52 who were for it, 

and at Laguna I might state that Capt. - and Col. Pratt are 

apparently alone in their opposition. They and their children have 
recently been allotted lands on the Executive-order reservation of 
Laguna and own those lands like any other Indians, and have had 
other benefits which have been conferred upon them by Congress, 
and I fail to understand the intent of their opposition here, because 
they know as well as I, because they have been connected with these 
Pueblos, what they particularly need and should have at this stage 
of their existence. 

.The Chairman. I thought I should call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee to this communication, which is intelligently written, and part 
of it quite forcefully written. There are some very severe criticisms 
visited upon representatives who are to appear here, and also, I 
think, upon the attorney. I submit it to the committee. 

Father Ketcham. Mr. Chairman, I submit that no Pueblo Indian 
ever wrote that protest. You have representatives here from Laguna, 
and also from Santa Clara, who may be able to throw some light 
upon it. 

The letter referred to is as follows: 


Pueblo op Santa Clara, 
Espanola, N. Mex., February 1 , 1913. 
The Indian Committees of the Senate and the 

House op Representatives op the Congress op the United States, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sirs: Your attention is invited to the fact that a delegation of Indians from the 
pueblos of this State is now en route to Washington for the avowed purpose of inducing 
the Secretary of the Interior to accept in trust the lands of these Indians. It is alleged 
that by the deeding of the lands of these Indians to the Secretary two things will be 
accomplished, the exempting of the Indian lands from taxation and the Federal con¬ 
trol of the liquor traffic. The Federal appointee called special attorney for the Pueblo 
Indians of New Mexico is in charge of the delegation and is the inventor of the entire 
scheme. He has induced the Indians who have signed the deeds and papers he has 
prepared to accept his plan. The superintendents of the Indians have either kept 
silent or assisted actively. 

I am a full-blood Pueblo Indian of the village of Santa Clara. I have been at times 
active in tribal affairs. I was at one time lieutenant governor of the community, an 
office corresponding to first assistant to the chief among nomadic Indians. By virtue 
of this old connection with the tribe I am a member of the tribal council. I speak of 
this to explain that I am not what is called a white man’s Indian, living apart from the 
tribe and not intimately connected with it in all matters. My home and my lands 
are within the territory which the attorney for the Pueblo Indians desires deeded over 
to the Secretary of the Interior. 

I am of the opinion that the benefits held out to the Indians as inducements are of 
questionable value. The taxation of Indian lands might in some instances work an 
injury. All taxation at times does this. The poor and the ignorant we have always 

80874—13-2 



18 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


with us. We shall have these elements present at the end of the trust period. It will 
be no easier for an Indian to pay his taxes then than now. My own tribe lives in Rio 
Arriba County, the county is as large as New England. The Pueblos of San Juan also 
reside in this county. The county is so poor that our terms of court can not be long 
enough to attend to the urgent business of the county. Taxes are hard for the natives 
to raise. The natives are poor Mexican farmers who do not speak English. There are 
numerous districts without public school privileges for the children. There.are little 
mud schoolhouses in some districts entirely without seats for the little Mexican chil¬ 
dren who attend. The two Indian settlements in this poor county, Santa Clara and 
San Juan, contain something under 1,000 inhabitants. No Indian is without a com¬ 
fortable home and a good piece of irrigated land, if he has not sold out or has not been 
too lazy to ask the tribe for a piece to put under cultivation. Both villages have 
expensive school plants erected by the Government, the schools supplied with Civil 
Service teachers, housekeepers, field matrons, doctors, farmers, and what not. We 
have had good village schools about a quarter of a century. . In addition to our village 
schools, we have free access to the expensive Indian Training School in Santa Fe, 
where not only book learning is obtainable, but trades are taught, food and clothing 
provided free, also transportation to and from the institution. Our white, neighbors 
have no such schools. In our county there is not one public school in which even a 
high-school course is taught and the per cent of illiteracy outside the Indian villages 
I am convinced is higher than in the villages themselves. I am fully persuaded that 
the per capita wealth of the Indians is greater than that of the other residents, if one 
excepts the half dozen sheep men who use the county for grazing purposes. The non- 
Indian residents of the county have not had as good education privileges as the 
Indians, have not had any better religious training, the same priests always minis¬ 
tering to both, and in the great majority of cases have no better homes and no better 
lands. 

To a fair-minded Indian it appears that it is unjust to exempt the Indians from the 
burden of supporting the State when there can be no exemption for our neighbors just 
as unable to pay as we. We must go to their courts for our protection. In fact a great 
part of the legal machinery of Rio Arriba County every term of court is occupied with 
purely Indian business. I am just as able and just as willing to pay for my court pro¬ 
tection and privileges as my Mexican neighbor. Yet his home will be sold if he does 
not pay his share of taxes. His business interests must suffer by delay oftentimes on 
account of the short term of court the county can afford while an Indian case rarely 
suffers any delay, because the Federal officers push these cases. The Government 
even pays our lawyer his fees. In providing for an easy existence for the Pueblo 
Indians, the white man should not be entirely forgotten. 

A sense of responsibility to the State would be a good thing to develop in the Indian 
heart. As one of my tribe once expressed it: “More taxes and less liquor would be a 
good thing for us all. ” I feel that the teaching of this doctrine instead of a campaign 
to the contrary would have been productive of much better results than the one just 
closed by the Federal employees. I believe it has been poor business from every 
point of view. It has revived the race feeling of the old timers, who believe that 
they are now going to get rid of the white people by deeding the lands away from 
under them. The old Indian deeds cover much territory now occupied by the whites. 
Some of the lands alienated were disposed of before the acquisition of the Southwest 
by this Government. The old people have an idea that these whites will all be 
evicted, and the deer and the buffalo once more will appear. When this does not 
come to pass, the old men will feel that they have once again been lied to. 

No examination of titles has been made by competent authority as to what lands 
the Indians really have and can deed away. No survey has been made to confirm 
the lines described in the old grant papers. There are a good many cases of conflicting 
interests between whites and Indians, and some cases in litigation. I feel that this 
end of the work would be the proper one to take up first. Not one of us knows what 
he really is entitled to and what he would have to pay taxes upon. We have begged 
in vain for surveys for years. 

I am loath to say anything disparaging about our attorney supplied gratis by the 
Indian Office, but for one I must say that he is too small a man to handle a question 
involving the welfare of 6,000 people for a lifetime. I want more competent advice 
than his before my people are irrevocably committed to anything so important. Mr. 
Wilson not only has no knowledge of Indians as a race, but he is not much better in his 
knowledge of law. He has been among us only a short time, possibly half a dozen 
years or longer. He never had any case in court until he began practicing upon us 
Indians by virtue of his appointment as our lawyer. He was a clerk up to that time. 
If you will call upon the Secretary of the Interior for a telegram from our tribe dated 
July 6, 1911, or within a few days of that time, you will find that we went before a 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


19 


notary public and swore out a statement repudiating this attorney as our lawyer. 
That repudiation has not been revoked. You will also find in the account of a general 
council of Pueblo Indians held May 16, 1911, that most of the tribes expressed a 
most uncomplimentary opinion of this man. 

By playing politics with the ignorant or the unscrupulous leaders of the Indians, 
he has succeeded in gaining the signatures of some to his papers. In my own tribe 
he has about 50 signatures. I call to your mind that we number about 300. This 50 
should not be deemed competent to dispose of our interests. Please take the census 
roll of my tribe, the Santa Clara Pueblo, and see that I am correct. I think you will 
find that this same game has been worked with all the villages. Our lands are con¬ 
sidered by ourselves just as an estate is considered among you. Not one interest can 
be sold out by this 50 ignorant or unscrupulous men. They have no authority what¬ 
ever to act for us. In fact I brought an injunction to prevent their use of the commu¬ 
nity funds for the purpose of a useless trip to Washington. I obtained a writ of injunc¬ 
tion. Mr. Wilson tried to kill it but did not. The case will be tried February 14. I 
think I will save our people about $400 by preventing the spending of it for an unnec¬ 
essary purpose. _ I oppose the trip at this time chiefly because it was proposed at the 
end of the administration, when I believed no important business would be done, if 
honest, by the outgoing officials who would thus saddle the new ones with a burden. 
And if it is necessary for us to to discuss business in Washington, one good man from 
our village would be enough. Three are going. They have been chosen, not by a 
fair vote of the 300 tribesmen, but have been railroaded upon us by our own bosses and 
by Mr. Wilson. We have a tribal bossism among us just as hateful to the average 
Indian as to the white man. Our bosses are nearly always the nonprogressive fanatics 
who use the arts of the native “medicine man” to cajole and threaten. A destruction 
of this sort of thing among my people I have always worked for. You will find that) 
half our tribe refuses to recognize the native officers, and that there is no tribal govern¬ 
ment among us in reality. We had a lawsuit and settled this point about 20 years ago. 
Mr. Benjamin Read, ex-speaker of the house of this State, was the attorney for the 
progressives. I was a nonprogressive at this time. In the arguments resulting from 
this suit, my eyes were opened to the fact that I was a free man and not the slave of the 
religious and civil native officers who ruled with a rod of iron and enforced pagan ob¬ 
servances under penalties never known to the white public. Mr. Reed will tell you 
about this case. Its revelations were so shocking that the documents disappeared 
from the court records, to save the face of the Indian agent, apparently, but the people 
are living yet who revolted successfully. Since that date no man has been compelled 
to participate in secret ceremonials under a physical penalty, yet some are left so de¬ 
voted to the old religion that they are yet under the rule of the governor and the caci¬ 
que on account of superstition. I would rather see my children dead before my eyes 
than to leave them to grow up under the rule of these native bosses. They would be 
encouraged and supported by the employees of the Government, as is always the case, 
because it is comparatively easy to manage the tribe with little effort by buying, or in 
some way controlling the bosses. 

One of the delegates to Washington at this time is the choice of the native high 
priest, the cacique, who supposedly reveals the will of one of our pagan gods in the 
matter. This delegate is Junaito Naranjo. He is a man who ruined his wife before 
he married her, and lived on her money afterward. She is an Osage, an orphan girl 
this “educated” man met when he was a laborer in the school in Santa Fe, where this 
girl was employed. He has never done a day’s work like a man since he married. 
He boasted before he took this trip on our business that he did not care if we lost our 
lands because he had plenty in Oklahoma. He was chosen by the native priest 
because he is related by marriage to the old man’s family, and the cacique is a man 
who would sell his tribe for a sack of beans. He is a vile old man morally, unkempt, 
dirty, dishonest, and ignorant. I deny the right of this man to select a policy or a 
delegate for me. The man he “revealed ” as the right one to go, Juanito Naranjo, is 
not only a lazy dependent upon his wife’s bounty, but he beats her after living upon 
her money. The Government teacher has had to wash the blood from her back and 
put salve upon it after this man had beaten her like an ox. And think of his wishing 
to be excused from taxation when his income derived from his wife’s and child’s money 
is princely. He has buggies, spring wagons, carriages, and three servants at this time. 
Why should he not pay taxes? Not the present teacher of our village had to doctor 
Nannie Naranjo’s back after her beating, but former ones will tell about it. Such a 
man as this ought not to represent my tribe. 

The other delegate, Francisco Naranjo, is a “boss” who has been bought by Gov¬ 
ernment favors to his sons, both of whom have Government positions they would lose 
were they to fail to influence the old man as desired. One of these sons has lied to the 
people stating that if they do not go to Washington now that Congress will never again 
take up Indian business. I am convinced that this young man played the spy upon 


20 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


our meeting and reported what I said against the policy and the trip, because I was 
never again invited to any discussion among my people on this matter. I feel sure 
the boy went back to Santa Fe and reported that I was against the business for I have 
been out of favor ever since. The young fellow was sent up here from Santa Fe to do 
a kind of missionary work in favor of the scheme. He had no other business and 
should have been on duty at the school. 

The third man, Yictoriano Sisneros, was a good man until lately, when he began 
to want a trip to Washington. He has lied without ceasing ever since in order to 
get to go. He assisted in the suppression of letters of advice from Father Ketchem, 
sent to the village by the priest for the information of the people. This letter advised 
against the trip at this time. Yictoriano was so eager to go that he helped hide the 
letter, as did Francisco. Only one side of the case has been presented to my people, 
and this in a lying manner. Victoriano has been the only interpreter the tribe has 
had in the case. He has been guilty of telling things to suit himself, and the people 
thought he was interpreting correctly. Even when he wants to be honest he is not a 
very capable interpreter except in simple affairs. He does not know the English 
language well enough to state things of great importance to the tribe absolutely cor- 
rately, though he has a fair working knowledge of simple language. In this great 
matter we should have had the best of interpreters, as well as the best of advice, in 
both Spanish and English, as well as in our own tongue. Native interpreters very 
often color things to suit themselves, doing so just enough not to be caught. Vic¬ 
toriano is able to pay his taxes. He is a good farmer, who raises enough for his living 
in about six months of the year. The other six he passes in resting, except for an 
occasional day’s work for pay. Francisco Naranjo is a well-to-do farmer, who rides 
in a carriage behind a fine team. He wears much finer clothing than any of his white 
neighbors who pay taxes. Look him over when he is before you and see if this is so. 
He has tax-paying neighbors a mile from his house who never have any better clothes 
than a suit of denim overalls and jumper. He has taxpaying neighbors who never 
owned an overcoat. His son is a tailor, who makes presents of fine clothing to the 
old man when the old man does not buy them. The son is able to pay his taxes too. 
Not a Mexican in the county has a finer furnished home than has Francisco Naranjo. 
Nine out of every ten of the whites within 5 miles have not the comforts of life he 
has. There would be no justice in letting him off, with his able-bodied well-to-do 
sons. These two sons have been educated at the expense of the United States in 
good training schools. They not only have lands and houses at home, but they get 
good salaries from the Government. They are much better able to pay taxes than 
most of the whites, who never had a chance to go to school, because the county has 
always been too poor to provide schools. 

I do not see that the deeding of our lands away to the Secretary would improve 
the liquor situation. Our neighbors the Jicarilla Apaches live on reservation lands, 
under the Federal liquor laws. The Jicarillas drink more than we do who live upon 
fee-simple lands, under the local State law forbidding sales to Pueblo Indians, which 
law has just the same chance to be enforced as a Federal law would have. It has really 
protected us better than the Federal law has protected the Apaches. The trouble 
with us is that our liquor officers here are themselves drunkards. Mr. Terry, at this 
time on duty among our people, was not only himself drunk at court in October, but 
he tried to induce his Indian subordinates to drink with him. There is a charge now 
against him with his chief, Mr. Larsen. This man Terry is a cousin of our agent; I do 
not suppose there is any way of getting rid of him. Our agent is a Coggeshall from 
Utica, one of a good many in the Indian service. He has some brothers who are also 
agents. One of them got drunk and gambled away a Government check while on 
duty suppressing the liquor traffic among Indians. This is why Indians drink. Terry 
was reported to our agent, his cousin, but the agent told the informant to keep it quiet. 

If our lands are put under Federal control, we shall have always among us these 
political appointees from Utica, or from wherever the strongest politician happens 
to live. I suppose since Mr. Sherman’s death they will come from somewhere else. 
It will be a backward step to put 6,000 Pueblos who have always been freemen down 
to the level of reservation Indians, under these carpet-bag political appointees who 
will be our rulers under the guise of being protectors, for 25 years or as long as the trust 
period lasts. 

And I see no reason if a community of Indians can deed their lands to the Secretary 
to escape taxes and avoid the police power of the State why a Mexican community 
alongside, as poor as poverty and more ignorant than any community of Indians in 
the State, could not do likewise with quite as much show of justice. This argument 
is being advanced freely in the small towns adjacent to our lands. It seems like a 
good one to me. 

pr In closing, I beg you to remember that there are nearly 6,000 Indians whose interests 
will be disposed of without their consent if this deal of Mr. Wilson’s is consummated; 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


21 


that the Indians who are giving him their assistance have no right in the world, legal 
or otherwise, to speak for the other Indians; that only one-fifth of my tribe signed up 
the papers prepared by Mr. Wilson, and that one-fifth did not in the least understand 
what the issues were; that dishonorable means have been used to induce Indians to 
assent to Mr. Wilson’s plans; that the deeding of our holdings over in order to escape 
paying our share of the support of the Commonwealth is a cowardly imposition upon 
our poor and ofttimes ignorant white neighbors who are not any better able to pay 
taxes than we are—so poor, indeed, as not to be able to afford adequate court terms 
and public schools for themselves; that the scheme proposed is a cheap little lawyer’s 
attempt to put about half a million acres of land under his own thumb under color of 
protecting Indians. 

If it is the wish of the Government to excuse the Indians from taxes, certain sums 
could be set aside by appropriation from year to year to pay these taxes to our State, 
and we would not then be considered a burden upon the State in legal matters. This 
would not put us back a century, making reservation Indians out of us; or, if our 
lands must be exempt from taxation, let the large holdings not now in cultivation or 
use of any kind be surveyed and deeded over to the Secretary, and thus escape tax¬ 
ation, but let our small holdings and our houses remain subject to our own control 
individually and let us pay individually the small tax which would be due upon 
these. This course would seem something of a compromise, and I believe it would 
not be so unfair and so detrimental to the progress of the Indians as the general whole¬ 
sale plan of relinquishing the whole Indian world to the Secretary. These points I 
wish counsel upon, and I advised caution by my people; but on this account I was 
unpopular, because unfair influence was used against me. 

Please do not think I am a drinking Indian because I am against the deeding over 
of our lands to the Government, in order, as is proposed, to put them under the Fed¬ 
eral liquor laws. I am a total abstainer, and I think I have done as much to promote 
the work of liquor suppression as anybody. I was a special deputy for this work, but 
was relieved without any explanation by Mr. Ballinger when I opposed the plan of 
the Indian Office to pasture cattle upon our lands by outsiders free of charge. I have 
worked 12 years for my present employers. I have the management of a ranch, for 
which they lately paid $15,000. I had managed a smaller ranch for them before they 
purchased the large one. My standing in the community you may learn from the 
mercantile establishments in Espanola, Chamita, and Alcalde. I think I own more 
property than any other member of my tribe, except the fellow whom I mentioned as 
having married the Osage girl. I have made all I have myself. I speak of these 
things to let you know I am speaking to you as one man to another, not as a beggar 
trying to lie out of his obligations. 

Very respectfully, 5 } Pedro J/Baca. 

Mr. Fergusson. I should like to add my request to that of Mr. 
Wilson here that you hear Mr. Abeita, who speaks English very well. 
He is an Indian from Laguna Pueblo. 

The Chairman. Then we will hear him. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PABLO ABEITA, PIJEBLO OF ISLETA, REP- 
Efc RESENTING ISLETA, SANTA ANA, AND SANDIA PUEBLAS. 

Mr. Abeita. Mr. Chairman, if your honor will permit me, I will 
say in just as few words as I can our mission to the great Capital 
and our reason why such a mission. The Great Spirit, the Supreme 
Being, put us on this country long before the white people came into 
this country. We were contented and happy and lived so. 

The white people came into this country without our invitation. 
We admired them, we feared them, we had reason to be afraid of 
them; they were big men, had big things; they appropriated our 
land without asking for it; we did not know what to do. We pro¬ 
tested against them, but they were stronger and much more in num¬ 
ber. They rounded us up; they settled around us, took opr land, 
our hunting ground, our water, and all they could lay their hands 
on. Finally they got so thick that some bigger man said, “If we 
keep on like this we will soon exterminate the Indians; let us give 


22 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


them something.” So they wrote on a big piece of paper a whole lot 
and when the paper was readed it read: u We give you this land so 
you live on it and stay there; you, your children, your grandchil¬ 
dren; it is yours; we give it to you.” Oh, what a change; the Great 
Spirit ought to have told us that there was another Greater Spirit than 
him who would one day come and take away the land he gave us. Was 
the Great Spirit false; or is the white man wicked? Does he want 
us to be left without a home, without a country, without a place 
where to lay our head ? 

We come here to plead, to ask you gentlemen to let the Great 
Government to take us into his care, under his protection; we feel 
and know that if we are left to the State laws it won’t be very long 
before you will have us here again on a different mission. Maybe 
asking subsistence to feed our children. 

Our land will not be safe if we are left alone under the State laws. 
There are no laws or never was a law made in New Mexico to favor 
us, but New Mexico has always tried and made laws by which we 
would lose our lands. For instance, New Mexico had a law which 
read: If a man stayed in a piece of land for 10 years he would have 
a good title to it. The people who made such laws did not realize 
or take into consideration that we had and have been on these lands 
for 10 times 10 years and more. 

We are not yet ready to understand all the ways of the white 
people; we are weak; we do not know yet the real value of our land 
m money; we know that our life and happiness is in our lands; but 
being weak we are afraid that if left alone in a few years our lands 
will be gone; then, as a duty that the white people owe, you would 
have to feed us, maintain us, which at present we are not asking 
you to. We are simply asking you to let the Government, the Fed¬ 
eral Government, to take care of us, our lands, our property, our 
children, for the period of 25 years, hoping that during that time 
our children will receive enough education to protect themselves, 
which at present are unable to do so. 

We also hope that by that time the Government will have found 
out how much land we own, or how much of our land is left to us. 
We also hope that our irrigation ditches will be improved during 
that time. 

We also hope that during that time we will be taught, our children 
be taught, how to take care of their health—what you people call 
sanitary precaution, to prevent diseases, how to care for a sick per¬ 
son, how to prevent the spreading of contagious diseases. 

We also hope that during that time the Government will do all 
that is in its power to put a stop to the liquor traffic among us, not 
only during the 25 years but for all time to come—to forget it. 

The taxation question; I could put an arguments miles long, and 
in the end I would conclude by saying that we ought to tax the white 
people for the land they took away from us instead of the white people 
taxing us for what land they never gave, because what land we have 
at present is only what the white people did not appropriate. So, 
no matter what you do or say, you will never pay back enough for 
what you took away from us. But here we are not asking for any 
money or any land; simply asking protection, which, to my belief, 
ought not to be hard to grant, unless you want to go into history as 
being the cause of blotting the happiness of once happy Pueblo 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


23 


Indians. I can not make my plea any stronger. I only ask you to 
remember that you have your own children, and their happiness is your 
life. So it is with us; without happiness we may as well not live. 
Within your hands, your power, I leave this matter. It is for you to 
say if we are to live a life of happiness or a life of misery. 

Senator Catron. Mr. Abeita, how much land has the pueblo of 
Isleta, to which you belong ? 

Mr. Abeita. About 175,000 acres—somewhere around there. 

Senator Catron. Your pueblo is occupying that land entirely, is it ? 

Mr. Abeita. Not what we always have had. 

Senator Catron. That 170,000 acres you are occupying, are you 
not? 

Mr. Abeita. I do not know it is that much. It may be that much, 
but I know we are not occupying all the land that we had 30 years ago. 

Senator Catron. Nobody else is occupying it? 

Mr. Abeita. The Mexicans and white people are. 

Senator Catron. In what part ? On what portion ? 

Mr. Abeita. There are a whole lot of Mexicans there from the foot 
of the mountains to the top of the mountains, which belonged to the 
Indians always. 

Senator Catron. From the foot of what mountain to the top of 
what mountain ? 

Mr. Abeita. The Mexico Mountain. 

Senator Catron. From the foot of the mountain to the top of the 
mountain there is not a single soul on it, is there ? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes; there is. 

Senator Catron. There is not a man living there, is there ? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes there is. There are over 25 people living in that 
place. 

Senator Catron. They may be section hands. What are they, 
Americans or Mexicans ? . 

Mr. Abeita. They are Americans and Mexicans. 

Senator Catron. What are they doing up there— mining ? 

Mr. Abeita. Mining. 

Senator Catron. Have you ever brought any suit to get them off ? 

Mr. Abeita. I do not remember that we have. 

Senator Catron. You are a merchant down there, are you not? 

Mr. Abeita. I have a little store. 

Senator Catron. A very good-sized store, is it not ? 

Mr. Abeita. A little store. 

Senator Catron. You have considerable property there outside of 
your land, have you not ? 

Mr. Abeita. No, sir. 

Senator Catron. How old are you ? 

Mr. Abeita. Forty-two years old. 

Senator Catron. Who is your partner in the mercantile business ? 

Mr. Abeita. No one. 

Senator Catron. Are there any other Indians that have any mer¬ 
chandise there ? 

Mr. Abeita. My mother has a little merchandise store. 

Senator Catron. What lands have ever been taken away from you ? 

Mr. Abeita. There is over 10,000 acres that the Mexicans are at 
the present time trying to take away, and there is probably 500 acres 
of land that the Mexicans are actually living on. 


24 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Senator Catron. Where ? 

Mr. Abeita. In Peralta. 

Senator Catron. Does your pueblo cover the town of Peralta ? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. And the town of Peralta has existed for over 200 
years, has it not ? 

Mr. Abeita. We have papers showing that we own that land. We 
have been living on that land for over 400 years. 

Senator Catron. You may have had it for 400 years, but Peralto 
has existed for a town for over 200 years, has it not ? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes. 

Senator Catron. And those people have been living there 200 
years without any interference whatever from any court, or anyone 
else, or any action on your part to put them off, have they not ? 

Mr. Abeita. No, sir; we tried to put them off. 

Senator Catron. How did you try ? What court ? 

Mr. Abeita. The land court in Santa Fe. 

Senator Catron. The court of private land claims ? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes. 

Senator Catron. You tried to get a grant confirmed there which 
the court of private land claims did not confirm ? Is not that true ? 

Mr. Abeita. They did confirm it. 

Senator Catron. The Court of Private Land Claims had no power 
to put anybody off, did it ? You know that. They can only confirm 
grants. Do you not know that ? That is all I want you to answer. 

The Chairman. Is there any other member of the Pueblos who 
desires to be heard ? 

Senator Catron. I wish to ask him just another question. These 
25 people that you say have been occupying this land around the 
foothills—how much land does each one occupy ? 

Mr. Abeita. I can not say, but I know they are living within that 
land. 

Senator Catron. You say they are mining? 

Mr. Abeita. Yes, sir; some of them are mining. 

Senator Catron. What are the others doing ? 

Mr. Abeita. There are some Mexicans there on homestead claims. 

Senator Catron. If they are on your lands they can not get a 
homestead claim. 

Mr. Abeita. They have a patent. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I think that ought to be elucidated a 
little bit. That tract that Mr. Abeita refers to is in contest now. 
At least we have the matter before the Secretary of the Interior. 
That is included in lands which the Indians have always claimed, 
which were not included in their patent, but their pueblo grants. 
The land at this point where Mr. Abeita has mentioned was not 
included in the boundaries of the patented lands which the Govern¬ 
ment patented to these Indians- 

Mr. Curry. It was not. 

Mr. Wilson (continuing). As a pueblo grant. The Indians have 
always claimed it, for the reason that the original boundary of their 
grant, as confirmed, was the backbone of the mountains, and that 
was always understood to mean the dividing point of the watershed 
of the range, which is 5 miles east of where the surveyor located that 
boundary. 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


25 


Senator Catron. But the department issued a patent, leaving it 

Mr. Wilson. It has never been judicially determined. The depart¬ 
ment, in making a survey, confirmed this survey of the east bound¬ 
ary, but it has never been protested against. It has never been 
judicially determined as being the east boundary actually under the 
confirmation. 

Senator Catron. They have no patents to that land ? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir; but they claim a Spanish title. 

Senator Catron. It has never been confirmed to them by our 
Government ? 

Mr. Wilson. No. 

The C hairman. Is there any other representative who desires to 
be heard? 

Mr. Wilson. I should like to call upon Mr. Yictoriano Sisneros, of 
Santa Clara Pueblo. 

Senator Catron. Let me ask Mr. Abeita one more question. Mr. 
Abeita, who wrote that paper, which you read, for you ? 

Mr. Abeita. I wrote it myself. 

Senator Catron. Who wrote the original from which you copied? 
You copied it—who wrote that original? 

Mr. Abeita. I did not copy it. 

Senator Catron. Who wrote it for you so that you could copy it? 

Mr. Abeita. I did not copy it from anyone. I wrote it myself. 

STATEMENT OF MR. VICTORIANO SISNEROS, OF SANTA CLARA 

PTJEBLO. 

Mr. Sisneros. Mr. Chairman, I will say a few words in regard to 
the trustee business. In all pueblos there we have been talking 
about putting our lands, our properties, in the hands of the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States. I know that we agreed to put our land 
in trust, because for the reason that we are not prepared at the pres¬ 
ent time to look after our interests ourselves, and we are not prepared 
in the way of living of the white people. For that reason we want 
to ask the Great Father in Washington here to protect us in our 
rights, in our properties, in every way that he can, because if we are 
turned over to the State law of New Mexico we will lose our land, I 
am sure, and will have no more schools, as we have now. Now we 
have a day school at our homes and a boarding school at Santa Fe 
and at Albuquerque to educate our children and our grandchildren. 
We should like to have all these things continued for a period of 25 
years. I believe at that time we may be able to take care of our¬ 
selves and to look after our interests in the pueblo. 

I wish to tell you something else about this man Pedro J. Baca. 
I call him my cousin. We have been talking with him for three 
years about this trustee business among our people. Since last 
November he was employed by Mrs. Clara D. True to work for her 
in her ranch, and in November he turned around and went against 
his own pueblo, and that is, I believe, because Miss Clara D. True 
had bought land from the Indians there. This Mr. Baca is working 
for her, and therefore he is against us. 


26 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Also, I should like to state that we would like to have the continu¬ 
ation of the irrigation business to improve that land for the Indians, 
because we need it. 

Also, I would say something about the liquor traffic. If we are 
turned over to the State law in New Mexico, under their control, we 
will lose our land, our property, and our children, and also the gener¬ 
ations of Pueblos to come. 

Therefore, now, we pray you, our divine guard, and you honorable 
Senators here, to hear us and to look upon us as the children of the 
whole of the United States. 

The Chairman. What is your business? What do you do? I 
assume you have finished. You may proceed if you have not finished. 

Mr. Sisneros. That is all I have to say. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. Sisneros. My occupation is farming. 

The Chairman. Where do you live ? 

Mr. Sisneros. At Santa Clara—pueblo Santa Clara. 

The Chairman. How much land have you ? 

Mr. Sisneros. I have about 12 acres. That is what I cultivate. 

The Chairman. What improvements have you on your land ? 

Senator Catron. They live in towns and have their cultivated 
land on the outside. 

The Chairman. Oh, you have your home in the town and then 
cultivate the 12 acres outside ? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you own your own home, do you ? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you children ? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Sisneros. I have one. 

The Chairman. You have no more than one in your family? 

Mr. Sisneros. No, sir. • 

The Chairman. Where was the child educated ? 

Mr. Sisneros. It is very small yet. It is only about three months 
old. 

The Chairman. I wanted to know concerning the opportunities 
your people have for education. 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have they a school where you live? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that supported by the Government ? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many are in attendance upon the school ? 

Mr. Sisneros. I do not just remember how many—about 50. 

The Chairman. Are there white people living in this town—white 
or Mexican ? 

Mr. Sisneros. No, sir. 

The Chairman. They are all Pueblos ? 

Mr. Sisneros. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

Mr. Catron. He has evidently made a mistake there. He makes 
his town as distinguished from the other parts, the piece of land 


PUEBLO INDIANS- OF NEW MEXICO. 27 

which was granted to them, because the town of Espanola was in 
the limits of that, the depot and every thing else. 

Mr. Wilson. He is, of course, referring to the pueblo village, and 
there are no Mexicans or Americans that live in the [pueblo villages. 
They have their own government separate and distinct from all 
about them. 

The Chairman. That is as I understood it. 

Father Ketch am. May I make an explanation? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Father Ketcham. I should like to state that I visited pueblo Isleta 
certainly over four years ago, and at that time Mr. Abeita brought 
to my attention some of the ideas he has read in his statement to-day. 
At that time I am pretty sure the attorney was not figuring on this 
question. Of course, as to the question of the patent trust being 
turned over to the United States, the patent was not issued at that 
time, so far as I know, certainly not by Mr. Abeita. But the other 
point I wish to speak about he brought up at that time. Since that 
time he has corresponded with me, and those letters will indicate to 
you that he could write not only that statement but a far better 
statement than that if he undertook to do so. He could write it in 
English or in Spanish. He can write in Spanish better than he can 
in English. 

The Chairman. It was only suggested that a half hour was to be 
given for this hearing, but we have given now over an hour and a 
quarter, but we want to give you all reasonable opportunity to be 
heard, as the delegation has come a long distance. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Nori, of the Carlisle School, is here. He is 
employed in the Carlisle School; but as a Laguna Indian he is here. 

Senator Catron. Is he from Laguna ? 

Mr. Wilson. He is from Laguna. 

The Chairman. What is his name? 

Mr. Wilson. Nori. 

The Chairman. Just give your name. 

Mr. Nori. My name is Sicni Nori. I should rather, Mr. Chairman, 
give away to one of my own home representatives, Mr. Paisano. I 
think he can speak more directly in connection with these things. 
I have lived away from the reservation for practically 20 years and 
am a citizen of the United States. I think he can give the facts more 
fully. 

The Chairman. Who is the gentleman you want heard ? 

Mr. Nori. Mr. Ulysses G. Paisano. 

The Chairman. We will hear from the gentleman named. 

STATEMENT OF ME. ULYSSES G. PAISANO. 

Mr. Paisano. We are delegates sent from various pueblos of New 
Mexico to petition you, the committee, which we hope and sure to 
get our desires. 

Our desire is to have our lands and properties placed in the hands 
of the United States Government as trust deed for the period of 25 
years, at which time our people will be well qualified to meet the 
citizenship and our children be well educated. The new State of New 
Mexico has certainly come unexpectedly and unprepared by these 
Indians. 


28 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


The free offer to these Indians will be accepted. The drunken¬ 
ness, that great enemy of the Indians; and especially a majority of 
them are ignorant, powerless, without hope in the State. You know 
very well how many thousands of the young men are ruined in this 
country, though many of them are highly educated. But once think 
of those poor know-nothing Indians. They do not know enough 
themselves that they are in danger. The fact is, they be more spoiled 
then to become good citizens. 

The Government of the United States has done a great deal of 
good to Indians, and the Indians of New Mexico realized the kind¬ 
ness shown by the Government. We had day schools and two good 
Government boarding schools, one at Albuquerque and another at 
Santa Fe. We also have sanitarium at Laguna, which is very 
helpful not only to the Lagunas, but to many others. We want these 
to be continued because they are very necessary. And here is an¬ 
other reason why we should want to deed our lands and properties 
in trust to the Government. It is this: There are in our differ¬ 
ent districts coal and oil, which can be found if well worked out. 
The United States Government people know just the value of it 
if it comes to a question of renting or leasing. But the Indians will 
soon lose the real value of it. And alongside of the Rio Grande 
River the Indian lands can be rented or leased, but they are afraid 
to. And if the Indians are able to get 5 or 6 per cent interest, and 
while on the other hand it might be gotten for 10 or 12 per cent in¬ 
terest, or according to the value of any property. 

And another thing will surely come upon these Indians, it is taxa¬ 
tion, which is also a new thing to them; we have never been 
taxed yet, even at the time of Mexican government. And you 
know this means to be taxed upon all of our lands and proper¬ 
ties, and, as I already said, the majority of these Indians are so ignor¬ 
ant; some of them do not even know what and how much money 
is, and are always afraid of paper money unless you told them or 
gave it to them in silver dollars. 

Now, again, I pray you, give us a chance for 25 years; then we 
will all be capable in many things, as we are not at this present time. 

May God the Almighty give you the wisdom, knowledge, and kind, 
warm feelings toward us. We thank you for listening to us with 
much patience. 

The Chairman. By the provisions of the bill under which this 
hearing is had the trust period is not limited to 25 years. The provi¬ 
sion in section 1 is that the period for which said trust shall be ac¬ 
cepted shall be 25 years or more, as may be determined by the re¬ 
spective Pueblo, in each case. 

Mr. Paisano. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then it is followed by section 3, reading that at 
the expiration of any trust given in accordance with the provisions 
of this act the Secretary of the Interior may accept a renewal of said 
trust for such period as may be agreed upon by him and the Pueblos. 
It would be an indefinite term provided for in the act. As far as the 
trust period may extend it will be a matter in the discretion of the 
Secretary and the respective Pueblos. 

Mr. Wilson. As to that, Mr. Chairman, the deeds as drawn allow 
for the 25 years, with a renewal proposition, or a privilege in 15 years 
in the pueblo. It is presumed, and the Indians think, that at the 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


29 


end of 25 years they will be perfectly able to handle their own affairs 
and will not need this help. But if at the end of 25 years there are 
any of them—and there might be instances where it would become 
necessary—who would want a continuation of this state, they want 
to have the opportunity to go ahead if it is deemed wise. 

The Chairman. Senator Catron is here and desires to be heard. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS B. CATRON, UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO. 

Senator Catron. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not know 
that I can have as much time as I might want, but I will try to get 
through in the time I have. I ffave about 40 minutes. 

I will preface this matter by saying that these Indians are Aztec 
Indians. And I will state further, to start with, that I have lived in 
New Mexico for 45 years and I know these Indians pretty well. 
Some of them live quite close to where I live, and I have been to 
every pueblo in the State except one, and that is Zuni. I know 
personally several of these Indians that are here, many of them in 
their different pueblos. They are Aztec Indians, the same Indians 
who occupied the City of Mexico at the time Cortez captured it. 
They were citizens under the empire of Montezuma. 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt you. Are they citizens enti¬ 
tled to vote in New Mexico? 

Senator Catron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. I beg your pardon, Senator Catron; the laws of New 
Mexico prohibit their voting. That has not been tested as to 
whether or not it is constitutional. 

Senator Catron. The law of New Mexico does not prohibit their 
voting. 

Mr. Wilson. If I had a compilation of the laws of New Mexico I 
could show you. 

Senator Catron. There is a statute there, but that has been 
modified over and over again by other laws. 

Senator Asiiurst. Did they vote at the last election ? 

Senator Catron. No; they do not vote. Some of them have 
served on juries right in the town of Santa Clara, from which this man 
Baca comes. I have seen them serve on juries in Albuquerque, and 
I imagine Mr. Wilson knows it. They have been summoned and put 
on the jury. There was originally a law that they should not be 
allowed to vote unless they paid taxes, but the law has since been 
modified in New Mexico, so that every citizen who has property and 
pays taxes can vote. WRile that old statute has not been repealed in 
exact terms, it has been repealed by subsequent statutes which have 
conferred the power upon every citizen. Every male person over the 
age of 21 years is a citizen of the United States, and the constitution 
of New Mexico confers that power. If the statutes of New Mexico do 
not do it the constitution does. 

As I said, these people were citizens of Montezuma’s empire. They 
became citizens of the Spanish Empire. They became citizens of the 
Republic of Mexico by the plan of Iguala. You gentlemen must 
understand what that means. It was a plan which was established at 
Iguala when the independence of Mexico was absolutely declared in 
that town, in the Republic of Mexico. Indeed, he declared it as a 


30 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


principle that all of the residents of Mexico—Europeans, Africans, 
or Indians; that referred not to the savage Indians but to what they 
call naturales (and these people are naturales)—were citizens of the 
empire and were citizens of the republic. They had an empire 
down there under Iturbide for awhile. The laws of Mexico so recog¬ 
nized them. 

The late President Juarez, who was the greatest probably of all the 
Mexicans who ever lived, and who was in charge of Mexico at the 
time Maximillian was dethroned, was a full-blood Aztec Indian, the 
same as these people. The late President Diaz was another one. He 
served for 40 years as president. In the Republic of Mexico to-day 
two-thirds of all people and of all the soldiers of the army belong to 
this class of people. They make no distinction from one end of that 
republic to the other in their people. Nor have they ever made it 
except as to savages. Under the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo—that 
is the treaty of 1848, by which New Mexico was brought into the 
United States, there was a provision which specified—I have the 
treaty here, if it is necessary to call attention to it—that all the 
citizens of Mexico living in the ceded territory should become citizens 
of the United States unless within one year from the time the territory 
was ceded thay elected to retain their Mexican citizenship. Not one 
of these ever elected to do that. So that they came in under our 
Government as citizens. Our Government at quite an early day—I 
think without any requirement for it, but because we were a territory 
and they could do just what they pleased with us, each individual of 
us—took some steps toward treating these people as Indians. They 
never made an appropriation for them in the shape of an annuity, but 
they have given them some agricultural implements and seeds, and did 
have an agent for them at times. Now the superintendents of the 
two schools which are in New Mecxio act as agents for them, one of 
them for one portion and the other one for another portion. If I am 
not correct in that, Mr. Wilson, you can correct me. I think I am 
correct*. 

New Mexico has never enforced any taxes against these people 
except in the instance that I believe Mr. Wilson mentioned in the 
case of the town of Taos, and that was never enforced, because after 
it was decided that they were subject to taxation under the laws of 
New Mexico because they were citizens, Congress passed an act 
exempting them from taxation. The very decision of the supreme 
court of the Territory which decided they were subject to be taxed 
held they were citizens. In two different decisions, or more, these 
Indians have been held to be absolute citizens and have been held 
not to be subject to the Indian intercourse act, or their lands con¬ 
sidered as Indian country in any sense of the word. Their lands 
have been under the jurisdiction of the Territory for taxation and 
otherwise, except so far as they had been taken away while New 
Mexico was a Territory, by the Government of the United States, 
which had absolute plenary power in that respect. 

But when we became a State all such power on the part of the 
Federal Government ceased—all such conditions under the Federal 
Government ceased to exist and they came in as citizens, just as I 
did, and as every other resident down there. They are citizens 
to-day. Their lands came in just like my lands and every other 
person’s lands down there. That is our status; that is their status. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


31 


Mr. Wilson started out by saying it was not so much to relieve 
these Indians from taxes—that was the great burden of what he said, 
but he wound up by saying they wanted to relieve them of taxes. 
That is the gist of this whole affair. They want to get them rid of 
taxes. These men are no fools, although they are Indians. We have 
75,000 people in New Mexico who are not as intelligent as they are 
who are unquestioned citizens. Those people are poorer than these 
people are. They are much less well-equipped for citizenship than 
these men, because they do not have any grants or any lands. These 
Indians have over 700,000 acres that are absolutely confirmed to 
them by an act of Congress of the United States and by a patent 
issued to them in fee simple. They speak of having lost a lot of 
their lands. They have lost very little, if any; they never lost any. 
The lands which have gone into the hands of others went in in a legiti¬ 
mate way. They can not allege a particle of fraud in a single instance 
of which I know. There may possibly be one, in which I think the 
Government was at fault when they had their special attorney in not 
having him attend to the business. " It was not Mr. Wilson; it was the 
attorney preceding him. That is, in reference to those towns of 
Santa Clara and the land lying east of the river. 

I have always thought that the decision of the court which decided 
that they had authority to convey their lands and the lands when con¬ 
veyed were properly conveyed and belonged to the transferee was 
wrong on the latter point. While I do not object to the right to con¬ 
vey, I do object to the manner in which it was done, which I consider 
to have been done in a fraudulent way; but these men were not over¬ 
reached. They knew what they were doing, and they stood by the 
transfer up to the last moment. It is stated by Mr. Wilson that they 
want to better protect these Indians with reference to the sale of liq¬ 
uors. He says that when the Federal Government had control they 
were able to protect them better. The Federal Government never 
undertook to control the sale of liquor among these Indians while we 
were a Territory. They did not even pass any act to control it to 
them while we were a Territory; but the Territory of New Mexico did 
pass an act, a strong act, and did prosecute under it. The Federal 
Government had no right to undertake after we became a State, or 
has no right now, to assume that these lands shall be subject to the 
laws of the United States and not subject to the law of the State when 
it came into the Union of the United States. Where is the authority 
anywhere under the Constitution for you to transfer the jurisdiction 
of a State over an individual or any body of his land over to the United 
States without the consent of that State itself ? When the State has 
jurisdiction over persons and property, to give the Federal Govern¬ 
ment the authority to exercise that jurisdiction it must get the con¬ 
sent of the State. 

Mr. Wilson has stated that under the territorial government, while 
we were a Territory, that liquor law was enforced. It was enforced 
under the territorial laws. It was enforced in the same communities 
and with the same machinery exactly that exists to-day—that is, in 
the local court of the county, where the jury that was summoned was 
exactly the same kind of a jury that you get to-day, composed in some 
communities of what will be called Anglo-Saxons and in other commu¬ 
nities of mixed Anglo-Saxon and Mexican origin and in other commu¬ 
nities almost wholly of Mexican origin, depending upon which is the 


32 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


larger proportion of the community. In the town and county of Taos 
the great majority of people are of Mexican origin. Mr. Wilson admits 
that under the Territorial government, where the law was exactly the 
same as it is now and administered in exactly the same way and where 
the Federal Government did not put its hand on it at all or undertake 
to exercise any power over it, the law was enforced. Under the State 
they cite you one single instance in the county of Taos. Any of you 
gentlemen who have ever lived in any State, and I know you have 
lived there and seen the operation of the law in a State, knows that 
sometimes a jury gets away from the law; a jury takes the bit in its 
mouth and runs off and will not do what you want done—both grand 
jury or a petit jury. That occurs sometimes, and that may have been 
what Mr. Wilson struck in Taos. Evidently he did not, or whoever 
was representing him there did not, pursue his remedy in the county 
of Taos as he should have done. Judge Leib is supposed to be a good 
judge. He is a Democrat in politics, and I have heard him spoken of 
favorably. 

Senator Ashurst. He will make a good judge, then. 

Senator Catron. He ought to be if he is not, and I believe he is 
because they speak well of him, and the district attorney is well 
spoken of also, and he happens to be a Republican. They were both 
elected in the same district, but it went that way. Under the laws 
of New Mexico there is no authority conferred upon the foreman of the 
grand jury to summon witnesses or to order witnesses to be summoned 
whenever they are asked for or whenever they are desired; but when¬ 
ever an offense has been committed the district attorney or judge 
directs the summoning of witnesses. I have been prosecuting attor¬ 
ney in that district myself for a great many years in former times, 
and in that particular county. I had trouble in that same county once 
in getting an indictment; the grand jury refused to take any cogni¬ 
zance of a certain case which I brought before them as district attor¬ 
ney. I applied to the court; the court called the grand jury in and 
told them they must examine into these cases, that they were alleged 
violations of law, and instructed them to do it. He did not tell them 
what they should do, but that they should examine into them and 
they should hear the witnesses that were required. Had application 
been made to Judge Leib, from my knowledge of the gentleman, he 
would have called that jury in and instructed them to examine into 
this matter. It seems that the jury did not even examine into it, but 
they took the district attorney’s word that if witnesses were pre¬ 
sented the grand jury would not find any bill. That is hardly a fair 
test. The only test for determining whether a bill will be found or 
not is to get your evidence there, put it before them, and let them 
vote on it. 

I have been, as I say, prosecuting attorney for a great many years 
in New Mexico. I was six and a half years United States attorney; 
three years I was attorney general and acting district attorney in that 
district and two years in another district, so that I know very well 
about the administration of the laws and the prosecution of crimes in 
that State. That was while it was a Territory, but the laws are exactly 
the same. They have not been changed. There is no trouble in the 
world about prosecuting these men for selling whisky. The courts 
have declared that the law is in force and can be enforced. That has 
been brought up in the court of Santa Fe, wherein the court held it 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


33 


and punished the men for selling the liquor in the county of Santa Fe. 
There is no trouble in the others. As I say, a grand jury may get 
away from a case, but in this case it seems the grand jury was not 
even given an opportunity. They simply took the district attorney’s 
word that if he presented the witnesses no indictment would be found. 
That is not a fair test. That place is a town within the limits of the 
pueblo of Taps; that is, within the limits of the land that was given 
to the pueblo of Taos. It is the county seat of the county, and it has 

a population of 2,000 or 3,000 people residing right there. Those 

Indians go out in the town in every direction, in every store, just as 
any other citizens of the United States do. They trade there. They 
act just as other citizens do, but under the laws of New Mexico they 

were singled out as a body of people and the saloons and whisky 

sellers were prohibited from selling to them. That law still remains 
in force. 

The Chairman. Senator Catron, are there saloons on these reserva¬ 
tions ? 

Senator Catron. There are saloons. Take, for instance, this 
town of Taos, which is the county seat of the county. There are 
saloons in that town. That town is within the limit of the grant to 
them. It is not a reservation. It was a fee-simple title grant. 

The Chairman. Are there saloons in any other towns ? 

Senator Catron. Yes; in the town of Espanola, which is situated 
within the limits of the grant to the pueblo Santa Clara. 

The Chairman. What is the law of New Mexico in regard to that ? 
Are saloons permitted under the law to be within these grants ? 

Senator Catron. These grants are not considered at all. They are 
not permitted to sell liquor to the Indians. They do not say a thing 
about the saloons there. They are not permitted to sell liquor to 
the Indians. These lands in the town of Taos have been occupied 
for 300 years by the whites there. The lands in the town of Espanola 
have been occupied by white people there for over 200 years. 

The Chairman. So that saloons may be located within these 
grants, but the law prohibits the sale of liquor ? 

Senator Catron. Yes. 

The Chairman. But the law prohibits the sale to the Indians ? 

Senator Catron. Yes; to these Pueblos. There is no question 
but what these white people who are occupying these lands there 
own the lands. Mr. Wilson admits that in Taos they do. He says 
that they do not admit they do it in Espanola, but I say they do, 
because they have been there a great many years and I have a pro¬ 
test here of the people of Espanola in regard to that particular mat¬ 
ter. I will read the substance of it. I will not read the names, but 
I will leave this and turn it over to the committee: 

The inclosure is a carbon copy of a letter submitted to the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs. We beg to call the matter to your consideration as well, since we feel 
that too much care can not be bestowed by us in the protection of our land titles. 

You will note that we are asking nothing more than an exposition of the whole 
matter before action is taken which will involve us in expensive litigation and which 
will depreciate the value of our lands and homes by the mere rumor that our titles 
are in question. 

The delegation is expected to leave for Washington at once with deeds or promises 
equivalent to deeds to lands which have honestly and legally been in our possession 
for generations. 

80874—13-3 


34 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


1 say, 200 years. 

It will work great harm to us to be included in a transfer, even if it develops in the 
course of time that the transfer is illegal. 

Kindly give your speedy consideration to the reported deed and see that we have an 
opportunity for proper representation before the Honorable Secretary accepts it, if he 
contemplates so doing. 

Our Indian population is almost illiterate, except the generation now reaching 
maturity and the voice of the old men is the ruling power. The old men are easily 
influenced and in this case we feel that it is possible that all sides of the case may not 
have been equally forcefully presented to the Indians themselves. Delay can not 
affect the case at all injuriously to the Indians and at this time we ask nothing more 
than delay pending a clear understanding by all concerned. 


(Signed by many parties resident there.) 

I read that as a protest by those people against the transfer of 
these Pueblo lands to the Government of the United States as is 
contemplated, so that the Government of the United States may 
undertake by means of some process to eject those white people from 
those lands. 

There are people at the town of Pena Blanca living upon lands 
belonging to Pueblo of Cochiti, and there have been saloons also 
within that town. The white people own the lands which they have 
lived on for several generations—over 200 or 300 years. And in 
other places probably there may be some, but I do not reniember of 
any other pueblo where that might be so. Do you, Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir; Cubero, on the Guada purchase—of the 
Laguna Indians. 

Senator Catron. I did not know that Cubero was within the limits 
of that territory. Cubero is a town and it has been a town for more 
than 100 years. It is a prominent town, and has a large voting- 
population in it. 

This is the situation: These people seek to have the Government 
protect them against the sale of liquor, when the Territory or State 
is actually doing it. We insist that you have no right to take these 
Pueblo Indians out or attempt to take these Pueblo Indians out from 
the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico and take them in under 
the jurisdiction of the United States. You can not do it legally or 
properly. There is the protest of the State of New Mexico against 
that action. They say that they object to it being done. The 
Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal court in New 
Mexico have practically decided this matter. Of course, you can 
not take the land of the Indian as a citizen of the United States from 
under the jurisdiction of the State and put it under the United States 
jurisdiction and still leave the Indian himself under the jurisdiction 
of the State while he occupies and uses that land. That is one of the 
things that must necessarily go together. If you take it in trust 
you do not relieve it from taxation. You will certainly fail in that 
proposition. 

The interest of the cestui qui trust is always taxable in every place. 
The usufructory right—that is, the absolute value—is what will be 
taxed. The Supreme Court of the United States, the supreme court 
of our State, and the supreme court of various other States have held 
that you can always tax the equity. That was held with reference 
to lands which were granted to the Union Pacific Railroad and to 
other railroads building across the continent when the land had not 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


35 


yet been transferred by deed to those people. They held that they 
were taxable because there was an equity tnere. In our State where 
lands have been confirmed, the act of confirmation provided that 
the patent should not issue until the survey was paid for, but before 
that survey was paid for the title was effectual, and while the title 
was in the Government of the United States they taxed those lands. 
The Government was holding the lands in trust, but no more. This 
is a pure, naked trust which is proposed. It is no other kind of a 
trust. It is a trust to hold those lands for a certain purpose, and 
that purpose is to prevent them from being taxed in the States for 
its support. It is also proposed to try to apply to them the laws 
of the United States. I wish to submit this proposition to apply the 
laws of the United States. Can you run the laws of the United States 
over a jurisdiction that the State has acquired when the State refuses 
to give it up ? If you can not do that, then you can not take this 
property so as to prevent it from being taxed. There is plenty of 
authority that you can not. 

The Chairman. I think, Senator Catron, if you desire to elaborate 
upon the law you can submit a brief and have it included in the 
record. 

Senator Catron. I will submit a brief later. 

The Chairman. It might expedite you in your presentation now. 

Senator Catron. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wilson has called attention 
to the constitution of New Mexico and to that part of it which is 
embraced in what is called the compact. The matters embraced in 
the compact were the matters which were required by the enabling 
act to be inserted in our constitution before we would be admitted 
as a State. They were compulsory clauses which we were compelled 
to accept whether or not we wanted them. As to this clause about 
the sale of liquor we do not object to it particularly, but it is there 
illegally. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Coyle v. The State of Oklahoma, in passing upon one of those require¬ 
ments which were obliged to be placed in their constitution, which 
is exactly the same as ours, held that that was a thing which the 
Government could not accept or require (it was a reference to their 
capital), nor was it a thing which the State could give away under the 
eleventh amendment to the Constitution, which provided that all the 
powers which were not conferred by the Constitution of the United 
States upon the Government, or prohibited to the States expressly, 
were reserved to the States or the people, and that it was not possible 
to give away anything that the Constitution itself did not provide for. 
Under our constitution with reference to the sale of liquors there are 
two clauses there which provide as follows (or will if the constitution 
remains in force, and if it does not the law will): 

Section 1 . Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabi¬ 
tant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her 
mode of religious worship. Polygamous or plural marriages, polygamous cohabitation, 
and the sale, barter, or giving of intoxicating liquors to Indians, the introduction of 
such liquors into the Indian country. 

Nobody will pretend that this is Indian country. They want to 
make it Indian county, and we insist they can not do it. 

The Chairman. From what are you reading? 


36 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Senator Catron. I am reading from the constitution of New Mexico. 
I am reading from the first clause of article 21, entitled “ Compact with 
the United States.” It reads: 

The sale, barter, or giving of intoxicating liquors to Indians, the introduction of such 
liquors into the Indian country, which term shall also include all lands owned or occu¬ 
pied by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico on the twentieth day of June, nineteen hun¬ 
dred and ten, or which are occupied by them at the time of the admission of New 
Mexico as a State, are forever prohibited. 

That is a clause which is inserted there by the requirement of the 
enabling act, and one of those clauses which the Supreme Court of the 
United States has held to be invalid and illegal and improperly to be 
caused to be inserted there, that it was giving away a right which 
belonged to the State, and which the Government had no right to 
demand or the State to concede. 

The Chairman. What is that case ? 

Senator Catron. It is the case of Coyle v . The State of Oklahoma 
(221 U. S., 559), and it is on the subject of the removal of their 
capital. 

The Chairman. What is the volume and the page ? 

Senator Catron. I will get the volume. 

The Chairman. That might be inserted there. 

Senator Catron. I will refer to it again. The eighth section of that 
same clause provides that: 

Whenever hereafter any of the lands contained within Indian reservations or allot¬ 
ments in this State shall be allotted, sold, reserved, or otherwise disposed of, they shall 
be subject for a period of twenty-five years after such allotment, sale, reservation, or 
other disposal, to all the laws of the United States prohibiting the introduction of liquor 
into the Indian country; and the term “ Inaian ” and “Indian country” shall include 
the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and the lands owned or occupied by them on the 
twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and ten, or which are occupied by them at the 
time of the admission of New Mexico as a State. 

We have provided in the constitution that the sale of liquor and 
the introduction of liquor into these places are prohibited. Our 
statute goes on and does actually prohibit the sale of liquor to these 
Indians, so that the State of New Mexico is not in default in any sense 
of the word, nor is it in default in executing the law except in a single 
instance referred to by Mr. Wilson. And I say it is not in default 
there, because he never made proper efforts to get the matter tested 
and have the jury determine whether they would find a bill or not. 

The Chairman. Do you hold that section 8 of the enabling act 
which you have just read, being embodied compulsorily in the 
constitution of the State of New Mexico, anything toward that in 
the direction of Federal legislation is invalid? 

Senator Catron. Yes, invalid; not only because we were com¬ 
pelled to put it there but the invalidity of it comes really from an¬ 
other cause, and that is the requirement of that is not one of those 
things which was conferred upon the Federal Government by the 
Constitution itself, but was one of those things which was reserved 
to the State, and in that very decision to which I referred, Coyle v. 
The State of Oklahoma, they held that the things which the Consti¬ 
tution did not provide should be given to the Government of the 
United States were excluded from it and could not be conferred 
upon it or taken away from the State, nor could the State undertake 
to cede them or give them away. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


37 


The Chairman. I know in recent years, in the opening of Indian 
reservations—and it applies to quite a number of openings of Indian 
reservations in my own State—the language employed in section 8 
of the enabling act is inserted in substantially all of those bills open¬ 
ing reservations. 

Senator Catron. I know that. That was public land of the 
United States. They held that on public lands of the United 
States- 

The Chairman. No; it would be Indian reservations. 

Senator Catron. I know, but those Indian reservations are 
public lands. 

The Chairman. This, of course, goes farther in this particular, 
that here of course are fee simple lands of the Pueblo Indians. 

Senator Catron. Yes. 

The Chairman. And they seek, of course, to extend that power 
and authority over the Pueblo Indians and denominating that 
“ Indian country/’ which of course is not Indian country. 

Senator Catron. It is not Indian country. 

Senator Page. Judge Catron, are there no treaties between the 
Pueblos and the United States? 

Senator Catron. No, sir; the Pueblos have always been citizens 
of the United States. They were citizens of Mexico before. They 
were citizens of Spain before, and they were citizens of the Empire 
of Montezuma before. They were never Indians, and our Govern¬ 
ment has never undertaken to make a single treaty with them, or 
recognize them as Indians in that regard. They have treated them 
as Indians by looking after their welfare, by giving them tools and 
giving them a few agricultural implements, and a few seeds now and 
then. They have never furnished them clothing. They have never 
furnished them rations, and they have never furnished them any¬ 
thing except what I have mentioned. 

Mr. Wilson. Is it not true that under the Spanish Government 
these same Indians enjoyed a special guardianship by virtue of the 
laws of Spain ? 

Senator Catron. These Indians did not retain any particular 
kind of guardianship. Their welfare was looked after to a certain 
extent by the Kingdom of Spain, but they were not regarded in the 
light of savage Indians. They were regarded as citizens. Of course, 
there were no citizens in the shape of the right to vote in the Kingdom 
of Spain. They were protected in their property. That is to say, 
their property was set apart to them, and the Government to a cer¬ 
tain extent looked after their welfare somewhat like ours has been 
doing, but they were not regarded as wards of the Government. 
According to tlie plan of Iguala in 1821, when Mexico declared her 
independence, in express terms she declared the Indians to be citi¬ 
zens of the country. That was held not to include the savage or 
nomadic Indians, but it was held to include these Indians who were 
town Indians and always have been such, coming down from 1821. 
There can be no question about that. The case of Ritchie against 
the United States was a grant to an Indian named Sonol. It will be 
found in one of Wallace’s reports they held that the Indian there had 
been made a citizen of the Republic of Mexico under the plan of 
Iguala, and he was entitled to take and hold and convey a grant from 
the United States. 



38 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Wilson. It is the case of the United States v. Ritchie. 

Senator Catron. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. That did not go to the extent of holding that they 
were not still recipients of certain protection from the Mexican 
Government, did it ? 

Senator Catron. It did not say that they were not entitled to 
protection. It did not say they were, but it said they were entitled 
to protection in these lands which had been granted to them by the 
Mexican Government as citizens of the Republic of Mexico, and 
could sell and convey them. 

Mr. Wilson. In the case of United States v. Piopica, Mr. Justice 
Field stated that the Pueblo Indians in southern California did enjoy 
a special guardianship on the part of the Mexican Government, did 
he not ? 

Senator Catron. I do not think he did. I do not remember it. 

Mr. Wilson. If that was true, Senator Catron, would it not be 
true that under the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 
the United States Congress would have the power imposed upon it 
to continue that same attitude, that guardianship over the Pueblo 
Indians ? 

Senator Catron. No; the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico never 
had any guardianship. I am talking about this: What may have 
been the particular relations of the Indians in California, in Lower 
California, I do not know. 

Mr. Wilson. These are Pueblo Indians. 

Senator Catron. That was in California. 

Mr. Wilson. They are all Pueblo Indians, nevertheless. 

Senator Catron. The Pueblo Indians in California were never con¬ 
sidered in the same relation, and in the cases they distinctly state 
they would not recognize them as Indians. 

On the subject of the sale of liquor to Indians I wish to read a little 
from the opinion of Judge Pope on the question which came up with 
reference to the sale of liquor to Indians. Which pueblo was that, 
Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. Wilson. Pueblo Santa Clara. The prosecutions were brought 
under the United States statute in accordance with the terms of the 
enabling act. 

Senator Catron. I understand. That is a statute which this con¬ 
stitution undertook to put in force. Judge Pope is our Federal judge 
there, and this is his opinion rendered in that case (United States v. 
Felipe Sandovol): 

We have therefore left as the sole basis upon which Federal jurisdiction may be 
retained over these people the fact that they are of Indian lineage. Is this enough? 
There is, from a governmental standpoint, no magic in the word Indian. It has 
through the course of our legislation indicated a condition no less than a race. With 
the condition gone by, the assimilation of the person into the body politic and the 
release of his lands from governmental control by the issuance of unconditional pat¬ 
ents his race loses significance. If the mere fact that he be an Indian is of itself suffi¬ 
cient to justify his being held always subject to a species of Federal police power, 
that power would seem likewise logically to extend to his remote posterity, for they, 
like him, have Indian blood in their veins calling for the national guardianship. 

And I will state that half the people of Mexico living in New 
Mexico have more or less Indian blood in them. 

The length to which this would go will be appreciated when we recall that high 
State officials and leading Members of Congress have been of Indian race. Can it 
be that to sell to such citizens or to deliver at the home of such a citizen an intoxicant 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


39 


is a matter of Federal concern? The question carries its own answer; and yet this is 
precisely what is claimed when it is asserted that to sell intoxicants to a Pueblo Indian 
citizen upon his own farm shall, so long as he, an Indian, owns it, be a matter to be 
regulated purely by Congress. Such, in my judgment, is a claim of power for Congress 
that it does not possess. More than this, it is a detraction from the police power 
properly belonging to the State, and if upheld has the effect to admit New Mexico 
shorn of powers possessed by every other State in the Union. It can not, therefore, 
be sustained. 

The Chairman. When was that decision rendered? 

Senator Catron. This decision was filed September 30, 1911. 

The Chairman. And that case is now pending in the Supreme 
Court of the United States ? 

Senator Catron. That case has been appealed from that court to 
the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Senator Chamberlain. Let me ask you this question: In view of 
the fact that that constitutional provision has been annulled by your 
own supreme court, do you not feel that if there is a way to carry out 
that agreement with these Indians it ought to be done ? 

Senator Catron. I do not feel at all that that agreement should be 
carried out with reference to these people, because they are as well 
situated and better situated than four-fifths of our people in the State, 
They have more property in proportion. They have as much intelli¬ 
gence and as much education. 

Senator Chamberlain. Why was it embedded in the fundamental 
act between the United States and New Mexico—in the constitution ? 

Senator Catron. It was put there because by the enabling act 
which permitted us to form the constitution the Government required 
we put it there, and we objected to it. It was the act of the Senator 
from Indiana, who was in the Senate at that time and had the entire 
control of the enabling act—Mr. Beveridge. 

Senator Chamberlain. No; he did not. When was New Mexico 
admitted. 

Senator Catron. New Mexico was admitted January, 1912, with 
Arizona. 

Senator Chamberlain. Senator Beveridge had nothing to do with 
it. He was not even in the Senate at that time. 

Senator Catron. Senator Beveridge was in charge of the enabling 
act. 

Senator Page. Senator Beveridge was in the Senate. He was in 
the Senate until March 4, 1911. 

Senator Catron. He was the chairman of the Committee on Ter¬ 
ritories when the enabling act was passed. 

The Chairman. The enabling act was approved June 30, 1910. 

Senator Catron. Mr. Beveridge was then in the Senate. 

Senator Chamberlain. When was the constitution adopted ? 

Senator Catron. That was adopted right after that, as soon as we 
could. 

The Chairman. Senator Chamberlain refers, Senator Catron, to 
the fact of your supreme court determining this matter. 

Senator Catron. This is our Federal court. 

The Chairman. I was going to make an inquiry. Has the question 
been before your supreme court ? 

Senator Catron. Not since we became a State. 

Senator Chamberlain. What appeals to me is this: There was 
an attempt in the enabling act to make an agreement with these 


40 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Indians recognizing their grounds as reservation grounds, and yet the 
courts upset it. If there was a way that that enabling act could be 
carried out, do you not think it ought to be carried out ? 

Senator Catron. I do not, because I do not think there is any 
necessity for it. I do not think there is any requirement for it. The 
people are not in a condition to require it in any sense of the word. 

The Chairman. Congress seemed to think there was some neces¬ 
sity, as otherwise it would not have been embodied in the enabling 
act. 

Senator Catron. Congress seemed to think that was a necessity, 
but sometimes they get these things in an enabling act, and they 
thought there was a necessity for various other things going into the 
enabling act; for instance, the fixing of the capital site in Oklahoma. 
They put it there, and the Supreme Court of the United States has 
passed on that and held it to be illegal, and all those provisions 
except such as were particularly given to the Government by the 
Constitution of the United States were illegally placed there. 

Senator Page. Senator, if there have been any duties devolving 
upon the Federal Government to these Indians before you became 
a State would it not have been right and proper for the Government 
to have taken care of those interests in the enabling act ? 

Senator Catron. They could only take care of them so far as the 
Constitution permitted it. They could not go beyond the terms of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Senator Page. It seems to me that if there had been treaties- 

Senator Catron. There was no treaty. 

Senator Page. But if there had been treaties it seems to me we 
ought to have had the right, and it would have been proper for us to 
protect our wards there. 

Senator Catron. A treaty is another thing. A treaty is higher 
than the Constitution in many instances and can supersede it. But 
there is no treaty between the United States and these people. 

The Chairman. I recall this, that in the admission of Oklahoma 
the people in the Indian Territory, the Government had treaties of 
course with many of the different tribes, and in those treaties it pro¬ 
vided that there should be no intoxicating liquors permitted or in¬ 
troduced, and in order to carry out that provision in good faith with 
the Indians, and looking toward their protection, the enabling act of 
Oklahoma provided that it would be necessary for the new State to 
embody in its constitution a prohibitory feature, I think, for the period 
of 25 years or 21 years, at least until the time had elapsed which had 
been provided in the different treaties. 

Senator Page. And the Supreme Court has never overturned that, 
has it ? 

The Chairman. I do not think so. I never heard that it had. 

Senator Catron. I do not think that particular clause has been 
tested. 

Senator Page. Do you think that would if that was brought to the 
Supreme Court of the United States ? 

Senator Catron. I think it would, on the same ground as Judge 
Pope held. 

The Chairman. When do you expect that decision to be rendered 
by the Supreme Court of the United States ? 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 41 

Mr. Wilson. The 24th of this month. 

The Chairman. That is, it will be argued there ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; it will be argued there. 

Senator Chamberlain. Who was the judge who rendered the 
decision ? 

Senator Catron. Judge Pope, our Federal judge in New Mexico, 
He is a former chief judge of our Territory. He was appointed from 
that position. 

I take this position that if you can deprive the State of New 
Mexico of its jurisdiction over these lands, of the right to tax these 
lands, you can deprive it of the right over the individual. 

The Chairman. The State, so far as I understand it, has not sought 
to tax the lands. Am I correct in that ? 

Senator Catron. The general tax law of the State imposes a tax 
upon all property of all citizens over and above $200, because every 
citizen in New Mexico, the head of a family, has an exemption of 
$200—these Indians and all others. There has been no law saying 
specially that these lands are taxed, but the general law, I think, 
would apply to it. I do not know whether or not it does, but I think 
it may. 

The Chairman. Therefore, under the general law of the State, it. 
would apply ? 

Senator Catron. I should think so, but Mr. Wilson does not think 
it will, and as to that I do not think it makes any difference. If his 
proposition is correct there is no necessity of attempting to do these 
things to avoid taxation. I think that protest you have here admits 
that fact that they are not taxed. 

I will proceed now on another matter, the status of these lands, 
lands which are conveyed in trust. I say that if you carry this bill 
into effect you do not relieve the land from taxation. The mere 
putting of the fee simple title into the Government of the United 
States and reserving the usufructuary right to these people leaves 
this subject to taxation, and that is the rule that has prevailed in all 
lands where there are equities left. 

I wish to read a short statement right on that question which I 
took from the Encyclopedia of Law. It seems to condense the 
matter, and refers to a great many authorities. It is taken from 
the volume of the Encyclopedia of Law on trusts. It reads: 

ESTATE OR INTEREST REMAINING IN CREATOR OF TRUST. 

Where an express trust is created, every interest and estate not embraced in the 
trust and not otherwise disposed of remains in or reverts to the creator of the trust, 
subject to alienation by him, and his grantee gets a good title subject to the trust. 
And an estate or interest in the trust property may be reserved or result to the creator 
by virtue of the provisions of the instrument declaring the trust, and his reserved 
estate or interest is subject to alienation, and to the claims of his creditors, although 
he was solvent at the creation of the trust. On the other hand, the creator may, by 
the provisions of the instrument creating the trust, be divested of an estate or interest 
in the trust property. Thus where a trust deed creates a valid trust and gives a power 
of sale to the trustee at the request, and for the benefit of, the beneficiary under the 
deed, no power of revocation being reserved, no estate in the premises is left in the 
grantor, which is capable of being transferred. And where a deed purports to con¬ 
vey the property in fee simple absolute forever for the benefit of the beneficiary and: 
her children, and provides that the trust shall be deemed binding until dissolved by 


42 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


the agreement of the parties or a decree of the court, no reversionary interest remains 
in the grantor. The mere fact that the title to the property is conveyed to the trustees 
will not deprive the grantor of the trust of his control over it— 

That is exactly what you are seeking here, simply to put the legal 
title in the hands of the Government and leave the control over this 
property in the hands of these Indians. 

Senator Chamberlain. Do you not think if this bill were passed 
it would be construed in connection with that original provision, 
which was upset by your supreme court ? 

Senator Catron. No; I do not. I do not think it ought to be in 
any sense of the w r ord— 

if his rights over the trust estate are not limited or qualified in the conveyance. And 
a grantor of property in trust for a specific purpose retains such an interest therein as 
entitles him in equity to insist on specific execution of the trust; but a diversion of 
the trust property, by the trustees, from the purposes for which it was granted, does 
not operate as a forfeiture of the property or cause it to revert to the donor. A statute 
providing that no trust concerning lands shall prevent a purchaser for a valuable con¬ 
sideration without notice, or a creditor without notice of the trust from attaching them, 
applies to lands held by the life association as a part of its emergency fund for the 
payment of its death and disability claims. 

There is another clause I wish to read from 37 Cyc., page 793. I 
will not read all of it, but I will read just part. It reads: 

PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST. 

Real or personal property held under a testamentary or other trust is ordinarily 
taxable to the trustee, as he has possession and control of it, and in this way the tax 
will ultimately be made to fall upon the beneficial owner. But exceptions to this 
fule are sometimes found, the property being made assessable directly to the bene¬ 
ficiary, and particularly in cases where the trust is not of the kind described in the 
tax laws. 

In this case it could not be taxed against the Government, and if 
you could transfer this property to the Government and could not 
tax it against the beneficiaries you would defraud this State of all 
interest in this property. There is 700,000 acres of land, a large 
portion of which lies within the valleys of the Rio Grande and other 
streams, and is worth over $100 an acre—much of it worth over $100 
an acre—which is sought to be taken out of the taxable property of 
the State of New Mexico, worth more than $1,000,000. 

Senator Chamberlain. Did not you people undertake to agree to 
that ? 

Senator Catron. No, sir: we never did. 

Senator Chamberlain. Who did ? 

Senator Catron. The Government of the United States under¬ 
took to agree to it for us. We protested against it, but we had to 
accept it, or we had to stay out of the Union. That is all there is 
about it. We came into the Union under compulsion. 

Senator Page. Having accepted it, ought you not to live up to the 
terms of it? 

Senator Catron. No, sir; not at all. When I accept anything 
under duress I am not compelled to live up to the terms of it any 
more than the people of Oklahoma were required to live up to the 
fact of leaving their capital at Guthrie instead of moving it to Okla¬ 
homa City. That same section reads further (from 37 Cyc., p. 793): 

Or where the person having control of the property is not vested with the rights 
and duties of a trustee in the true sense of the word* or where it is a mere naked or 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


43 


dry trust, or the property and the beneficiaries are both outside the State, although 
the trustee may reside within it, or where a deed or settlement in trust is a mere device 
to escape taxation on the part of the real owner. 

This is a mere device to escape taxation on the part of the real owner. 
This comes from 37 Cyc., 793. Those are things where you can tax. 
We can not tax the Government, but here is a beneficial use, here is 
an equity which you are allowed to tax in every part of this Union, 
the equities which these people retain and that is the entire beneficial 
use of it. We can transfer the right of possession of this property 
to another individual and give him just as much right as he would 
have if the title of property was in him, because the title has eventu¬ 
ally got to revert to the cestui tue trust or his grantee. As I say, 
there are 700,000 acres of land that are absolutely owned in fee simple 
title by these Indians, many thousand acres of that lying within 
the valley of the Rio Grande. There is the little Pueblo of Sandia, 
which is not represented here, I believe. Is Sandia represented ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; Sandia is represented by proxy. 

Senator Catron. The Little Pueblo of Sandia has only about 76 
people in it according to the census. They have about 24,000 acres 
of land. It lies within the valley of the Rio Grande, and at the least 
calculation 7,000 or 8,000 of this land is bottom land worth over $100 
an acre, and not more than 150 or 200 acres of it are cultivated. 

Mr. Abbott. Senator, do you know how many acres the Sandia 
Pueblo has already lost ? 

Senator Catron. I do not know that any has been lost. I do not 
know how it could be lost. The Sandia Pueblo may have permitted 
the town of Bernalillo to get hold of some of their property, but it 
was not lost to them. There is no question that property which is 
obtained by legal process or by legal operation of law or lawful pro¬ 
cedure, which gets into the hands of another individual, is lost to 
others. 

Mr. Abbott. But it escaped the possession of the Indians. 

Senator Catron. Sometimes the Indians dispose of it. These 
lands were taken possession of by these Indians back 100 or more 
years ago by the ancestors of these Indians and they held them. 
They claim them as their own. As the Indian from Santa Clara said, 
that was his house and land. They claim them as their own. They 
occupy them, and under the law of New Mexico, as it has existed 
ever since New Mexico was a Territory, the occupation under the 
claim of right continuous and adverse to the world gives you an 
absolute title. So the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 
case of Provost v. Presbyterian Church (129 U. S., 182), has decided. 

I say these lands are too intimately connected with these people, 
as citizens, to say that you can convey the land and take them from 
out under the Federal jurisdiction and leave the citizen under State 
jurisdiction. The State of New Mexico provides protection for all of 
its citizens. It levies taxes. It has officials to enforce the law. It 
guards its people against wrong. Every man in that State is entitled 
to the benefit of the expenditure of public money for protection of 
himself and his property and his family. That protection they can 
not take away from the State. You *can not turn it over to the 
Federal Government. In the case of The Matter of Heff (197 U. S. 
488), that was a case, I think, of some Indians in the North. I 
do not remember the name of it; it was a case where lands had been 


44 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


assigned to them in severalty, but the principle which I wish to read 
from is found on page 509. I will read, commencing at the bottom 
of page 508-- 

Mr. Wilson. May I interrupt you a moment? 

Senator Catron. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. In that case, is it not true that the allotting act of 
Congress released absolutely all jurisdiction over those Indians to 
the State authorities—and their property ? 

Senator Catron. Yes: and these Pueblo Indians have all jurisdic¬ 
tion released to the State because it has always been there. It only 
placed those Indians in the exact condition that these Indians are. 

Mr. Wilson. Is it not true that in the enabling act the Congress of 
the United States tried to preserve that jurisdiction over these 
people ? 

Senator Catron. It is true the enabling act is trying to do it—not 
over the people, but over the sale of liquor to them. 

Mr. Wilson. Also over their lands ? 

Senator Catron. Over their lands, to be considered as “Indian 
country,” in reference to the sale of liquor only. 

Mr. Wilson. It reserved jurisdiction over their lands. 

Senator Catron. Only over their lands to be considered as “ Indian 
country.” You are asking that you may take private land and turn 
it into “Indian country” and hold the white people who go into that 
private land, or white men who live on that land, shall be subject to 
the conditions of selling liquor in the “Indian country.” That did 
not change the situation except that it puts these northern Indians 
exactly in the situation of the Pueblo Indians. It brought them in 
under the State jurisdiction. They were not before. Then they 
sought to get back in a certain way under the Government of the 
United States after it had been done. 

The decision in Matter of Heff (197 U. S., 488) reads as follows, 
in part: 

But the logic of this argument implies that the United States can never release 
itself from the obligation of guardianship; that so long as an individual is an Indian 
by descent, Congress, although it may have granted all the rights and privileges of 
national and therefore State citizenship, the benefits and burdens of the laws of the 
State, may at any time repudiate this action and reassume its guardianship— 

That is the logic of the argument they insisted on, not the logic 
of the decision of the court— 

and prevent the Indian from enjoying the benefit of the laws of the State— 

And that is what they are seeking to do here— 

and release him from obligations of obedience thereto. Can it be that because one 
has Indian and only Indian blood in his veins he is to be forever one of a special 
class over whom the General Government may, in its discretion, assume the rights 
of guardianship which it has once abandoned, and this whether the State or the indi¬ 
vidual himself consents? We think the reach to which this argument goes demon¬ 
strates that it is unsound. 

That is, not only must the individual consent, but the State must 
consent. 

But it is said that the Government has provided that the Indians’ title shall not be 
alienated or encumbered for 25 years, and has also stipulated that the grant of citi¬ 
zenship shall not deprive the Indian of his interest in tribal or other property, but 
these are mere property rights and do not affect the civil or political status of the 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


45 


allottees. In Lnited States v. Ricket (188 U. S., 432) we sustained the right of the 
Government to protect the lands thus allotted and patented from any encumbrance 
of State taxation. 

Because they reserved that right when they were allotted. 

Undoubtedly an allottee can enforce his right to an interest in the tribal or other 
property (for that right is expressly granted) and equally clear is it that Congress 
may enforce and protect any condition which it attaches to any of its grants. 

There are no conditions attached to the grants to these Indians. 

This it may do by appropriate proceedings in either a national or a State court. 
But the fact that property is held subject to a condition against alienation does not 
affect the civil or political status of the holder of the title. Many a tract of land 
is conveyed with conditions subsequent. A minor may not alienate his lands, and 
the proper tribunal may, at the instance of the rightful party, enforce all restraints 
upon alienation. 

But it is unnecessary to pursue this discussion further. We are of the opinion that 
when the United States grants the privileges of citizenship to an Indian— 

Here they' had the citizenship without its being granted to them— 
gives to him the benefit of and requires him to be subject to the laws— 

And that the Government did not give them, but they already 
had it and came into the country under it— 

both civil and criminal, of the State, it places him outside the reach of police regu¬ 
lations on the part of Congress. 

You can not emancipate without getting him out from under your 
control. 

This is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
rendered in 1905. 

Mr. Wilson. Senator Catron, may I ask you a question ? 

Senator Catron. Certainly. 

Mr. Wilson. In reference to that case, is it not true that it has 
been narrowed down by subsequent decisions to the mere proposi¬ 
tion that where the United States has by act of Congress released 
an Indian by specific terms to the jurisdiction of the State that then 
they can not enforce Federal laws, as were attempted to be enforced 
in that case ? 

Senator Catron. I do not know that there is any decision of that 
kind, and I simply say it makes no difference whether the United 
States has released, or that condition existed and that the United 
States had never released, whether the party came into the United 
States with those conditions which were released to the other party. 
They certainly could not stand in any worse condition, because they 
inherited these rights from the commencement, and they obtained 
nothing from the Government except the stipulations of the treaty, 
which were that all citizens coming into this country should have 
the same rights, privileges, and benefits of other citizens of the United 
States. There is a clause in our Constitution giving every one in 
the State the same rights, benefits, and privileges of the people of 
other States and putting them all on an equal footing. It has been held 
over and over again that all must be on an equal footing. 

The decision in 197 U. S. reads further, as follows: 

That the emancipation from Federal control thus created can not be set aside at 
the instance of the Government without the consent of the individual Indian and 
the State, and that this emancipation from Federal control is not affected by the 
fact that the lands it has granted to the Indian are granted subject to a condition 
against alienation and incumbrance, or the further fact that it guarantees to him an 
interest in tribal or other property. 


46 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


That decision and the decision of Judge Pope, which I will refer to 

in my brief, for which I ask leave to file- 

The Chairman. That will be permitted, and you may file it within 
a reasonable time, but as promptly as you can. 

Senator Catron submitted the following table and protests against 
the pending legislation: 


Population and land area of Pueblo Indians m New Mexico. 


Reservations. 

Area. 

Popula¬ 
tion, 1912. 

Remarks. 

Acoma. 

95,792 

1,114 

Includes 275 Pueblos, McCarty’s Band; 
257 Pueblos, Seama Band. 

Cochiti . 

24,256 

110,080 

17,510 

154,025 

13,586 

18,763 

17,461 
13,520 
24,187 
17,545 
34,767 
17,361 
49,369 
92,398 
17,515 
17,293 
17,361 
17,471 
215,040 

233 

Isleta. 

1,057 


Jemez. 

554 

(Includes 107 Casa Blanca Band Pueb- 
I los, 146 Menta Band Pueblos, 474 
1 Pagnate Band Pueblos, 151 Paraje 
l Band Pueblos. 

208 Canon Cito Pueblos west of Pecos 

Laguna. 

Nambe. 

1,227 

115 

Pecos 

Picuris. 

127 

Reservation. 

Pojoaque. 

16 


San Dia. 

76 


San Juan. 

376 


San Felipq... 

498 


Santa Ana.. 

215 


Santa Clara. 

265 


Santo Domingo. 

925 


Sia. 

119 


San Ildefonso. 

117 


Taos. 

543 


Tesuque. 

96 


Zuni. 

1,589 




Total. 

985,300 

9,262 





Espanola, N. Mex., January SO, 1913. 

House Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington , D. C. 

Gentlemen: The inclosure is a carbon copy of a letter submitted to the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs. We beg to call the matter to your consideration as well, 
since we feel that too much care can not be bestowed by us in the protection of our 
land titles. 

You will note that we are asking nothing more than an exposition of the whole 
matter before action is taken which will involve us in expensive litigation and which 
will depreciate the value of our lands and homes by the mere rumor that our titles are 
in question. 

The delegation is expected to leave for Washington at once with deeds, or promises 
equivalent to deeds, to lands which have honestly and legally been in our possession 
for generations. It will work great harm to us to be included in a transfer, even if it 
develops in the course of time that the transfer is illegal. 

Kindly give your speedy consideration to the reported deed and see that we have 
an opportunity for proper representation before the honorable Secretary accepts it, 
if he contemplates so doing. 

Our Indian population is almost illiterate, except the generation now reaching 
maturity and the voice of the old men is the ruling power. The old men are easily 
influenced and in this case we feel that it is possible that all sides of the case may not 
have been equally forcefully presented to the Indians themselves. Delay can not 
affect the case at all injuriously to the Indians anu at this time we ask nothing more 
than delay pending a clear understanding by all concerned. 

Very respectfully, Alex Naranjo 

(And 32 others). 
































PUEBLO INDIANS OP NEW MEXICO. 


47 


Espanola, N. Mex., January 30, 1913. 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: We, the undersigned, citizens and property owners of the Espanola Valley, beg 
to call to your attention the action now in progress by certain of the officers ot the 
Indian Bureau in inducing the Santa Clara and other bands of Pueblo Indians to 
deed their lands to the Secretary of Interior. 

We have reason to believe that the deeds signed have been signed without any con* 
sideration by the Indians and that many have not even been consulted. We have 
further reason to believe that the lands so deeded include tracts to which the Indians 
have no title. If this is true, it will work great harm to us in that it will place us in 
the position of fighting the Government for our titles and it will depreciate the price 
of our lands because the rumor will be spread abroad that our titles are clouded. 

The whole proceeding is being rushed through with apparently a haste which is 
suspicious. It is reported that a delegation of Indians will leave for Washington 
to-morrow with deeds purporting to be signed by their tribe. It has been repre* 
sented to these good people that unless they get the deal concluded before March 4th 
of the present year that Congress will never give them a hearing on any question. 
Apparently other inducements equally absurd have been made. 

We beg that you will give your speedy attention to the case, especially that you 
will call upon the Indian Department and upon the honorable Secretary of Interior 
for all papers regarding the transfer of Espanola Valley lands, particularly the lands 
deeded over by the Santa Clara Tribe of Pueblo Indians. 

We ask nothing more than a proper consideration of this matter before final action 
is taken. We wish no injustice to the Indians. In fact this community has cause 
for pride in that it has never wronged the Indians in land matters. Indeed the Indians 
of New Mexico have not been deprived of lands even in the old and lawless pioneer 
days except in instances of minor importance. Our Indian population has been less 
molested than the aboriginal population of any other State. 

We feel that we are entitled to a hearing before lands are deeded away by Indians 
who may have no right to make deeds or promises to deliver deeds and we ask that we 
may be apprised of any action contemplated by the honorable Secretary of Interior 
in time to be represented if the lands involved include the possibility of a difference 
of opinion, which at present appears the case. 

Very respectfully, 

Alfredo Lucero 

(And 19 others). 


Espanola, N. Mex., January 30, 1913. 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: We, the undersigned citizens and property owners of the Espanola Valley, beg 
to call to your attention the action now in progress by certain of the officers of the In* 
dian Bureau in inducing the Santa Clara and other bands of Pueblo Indians to deed 
their lands to the Secretary of the Interior. 

We have reason to believe that the deeds signed have been signed without any con* 
sideration by the Indians, and that many have not even been consulted. We have 
further reason to believe that the lar ds so deeded include tracts to which the Indians 
have no title. If this is true, it will work great harm to us in that it will place us in 
the position of fighting the Government for our titles, and it will depreciate the price of 
our lands, because the rumor will be spread abroad that our titles are clouded. 

The whole proceeding is being rushed through with apparently a haste which is sus¬ 
picious. It is reported that a delegation of Indians will leave for Washington to¬ 
morrow with deeds purporting to be signed by their tribe. It has been represented to 
these good people that unless they get the deal concluded before March 4th of the 
present year that Congress will never give them a hearing on any question. Appar¬ 
ently other inducements equally absurd have been made. 

We beg that you will give your speedy attention to the case, especially that you will 
call upon the Indian Department and upon the honorable Secretary of the Interior 
for all papers regarding the transfer of Espanola Valley lands, particularly the lands 
deeded over by the Santa Clara Tribe of Pueblo Indians. 

We ask nothing more than a proper consideration of this matter before final action 
is taken. We wish no injustice to the Indians. In fact, this community has cause 
for pride in that it has never wronged the Indians in land matters. Indeed, the In¬ 
dians of New Mexico have not been deprived of lands even in the old and lawless 



48 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


pioneer days, except in instances of minor importance. Our Indian population has 
been less molested than the aborigi al population of a^y other State. 

We feel that we are entitled to a hearing before lar ds are deeded away by Indians 
■who may have right to make deeds or promises to deliver deeds, and we ask that we 
tnay be apprised of any action contemplated by the honorable Secretary of the In¬ 
terior in time to be represented if the lands involved include the possibility of a differ¬ 
ence of opi ion, which at present appears the case. 

Very respectfully, P. H. Hill 

(And 110 others). 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE CURRY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
AT LARGE FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 

Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the State of New Mexico, I 
wish to protest-against the passage of this bill. The details have been 
gone into very fully by Mr. Catron, with whom I thoroughly agree on 
this proposition. In the first place, the House of Representatives of 
the State of New Mexico, composed of 49 members, has unanimously 
passed a resolution protesting against it, and the Senate, composed 
of 24 members, has, by a vote of 20 to 4, passed a resolution pro¬ 
testing against it. I am in receipt of letters and telegrams from 
almost every prominent citizen of the State of New Mexico protesting 
against this legislation. 

I wish to take issue with Mr. Wilson in regard to the treatment of 
the Indians by the Territorial government and by the State govern¬ 
ment. I am not connected with the State government in any way. 
I was connected with the Territorial government. I have been in the 
house of representatives and I have been in the senate. I was 
president of the senate. 

The Chairman. How long were you governor of New Mexico ? 

Mr. Curry. For three years. I wish to say that although the men 
in charge of affairs in New Mexico are my political opponents, they 
are men of high character, and they are men who are enforcing the 
laws of the State just as vigorously as they have ever been enforced. 
In addition to the sheriffs and our various county officials, we have an 
efficient mounted police force, which is absolutely at the disposal of the 
Government. I do not believe that there is any State in the Union 
which gives the Government more power to enforce the criminal laws 
of New Mexico than our State. The constitution of the State of New 
Mexico absolutely prohibits the sale of liquor to Indians anywhere, 
no matter where they may be, whether they are Indian lands or not. 

Senator Catron. It includes Pueblo Indians. 

Mr. Curry. And that law which Mr. Wilson has referred to, in Taos; 
there may be some particular locality in which you can not enforce a 
law. You have probably seen mobs that the whole community was 
in, where it was impossible to convict them. Those conditions arise 
in all States and all Territories. I wish to say in behalf of the people 
of New Mexico, not only those of American descent but those of 
Spanish descent, that the lawyers who have practiced before our 
courts and the courts themselves will tell you that there are no 
better jurors in the world than the Spanish-speaking people. They 
come nearer to enforcing the laws than the Americans. I remember 
a case in my county where there was not a Mexican on the jury. A 
man killed another man. Judge Freeman, a man of high standing, 
from Tennessee, was on the bench. The case was a case of a man who 
was shot down in cold blood. The court called in the grand jury and 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


49 


ordered them to find an indictment. He tried to force them to find 
an indictment. The people of the community thought they were rid 
of a bad man, and they stood man to man with that jury in refusing to 
indict anyone. They were wrong legally, but those things occur not 
only in communities in which the Mexican population predominates, 
but they occur in other communities. The judges in my State, most 
of whom have been appointed from other parts of the Union, have 
told me, and I expect they have told all lawyers, that the best juries 
they have are those composed of Spanish-speaking people. 

When it comes to the advantage these people occupy in New 
Mexico, every one of them live in rich and fertile land. I have ridden 
almost all of the Pueblos. They are much better off than their 
Mexican neighbors. They own more stock, they own better farms, 
and they have more money, which is evident from the fact that a 
committee of 15 or 20 could come to Washington at an expense of 
$200 apiece to present their matter to Congress. 

They talk about them not knowing the value of money. I have 
bought blankets and various other things from those people. They 
are the shrewdest traders in New Mexico. That is nothing against 
them. I give them credit for it. I am glad to see them advancing 
in the lines of civilization. I am glad to see them engage in commerce, 
and I am glad to see them protect themselves. The people of New 
Mexico are perfectly willing to treat these people fairly and justly; 
and all we want to do is to be given the opportunity to do it, and we 
guarantee you we will do it. 

There is no feeling whatever, probably with the exception of the 
little village of Taos, where we had some trouble from time to time 
between the Indians and the Mexicans. Outside of that I believe 
there is no feeling against Indians. It possibly occurred in Taos, but 
I know other communities where it does not exist. The friendliest 
relations exist between them. Many of them are intermarried and 
every one of these gentlemen here speaks the Spanish language as 
well as their own. They are absolutely affiliated with them in every 
way and have been for generations. 

When it comes to their wealth, I do not know what the per capita 
will be, but I will guarantee you that it is more than the Mexican 
population of New Mexico. These people here to-day and the tribes 
which they represent are worth more money than those people of 
Anglo-Saxon descent in the State of New Mexico. I think it is un¬ 
just that they should be exempt from taxation. Their rich and 
fertile lands which they own are taxed just like everybody else’s 
lands are taxed. They should not be taxed any more, but they 
should bear the same burden as any other citizen of New Mexico 
should bear. They have many advantages over our citizens in view 
of the fact that they are educated at the expense of the General 
Government when the other residents of New Mexico are compelled 
to tax themselves for the purpose of educating their children. There 
is no objection to this, and I sincerely hope that the General Govern¬ 
ment will continue to deal generously with these people as they 
have in the past. The change from a Territorial to a State government 
in no wise affects their standing except possibly for the purpose of 
taxation, from which by an act of Congress they have heretofore 
been exempt. 

80874—13-4 



50 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


STATEMENT OF MR. I. J. HUBBELL, A MEMBER OF THE 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 

Mr. IIubbell. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do 
not know about the points of law involved here. I have had no ex¬ 
perience as a lawyer, nut I have had a great deal of experience among 
the Indians. 1 have traded with them for the last 40 years. I be¬ 
lieve that the point in question to be decided by this committee— 
whether it would be a legal action of the committee to transfer the 
lands of these Indians to the Government of the United States I do 
not know, but I believe it is for the benefit and the welfare of these 
Indians and that any other argument is simply, in my estimation, 
words of sophistry. There is no question that these Indians if they 
are permitted under the present construction of the law to be resi¬ 
dents of the United States their welfare will imperiled. There is no 
question, if we look at the history of the Indian tribes, their lands, 
as they have been thrown open for a settlement, that it has been a 
great detriment to them. There is no question that men have gone 
into the Indian country and bought a few acres of land, and others 
through taxes have been sold and have been deprived of their homes. 
It is a matter of charity and the duty of this Government, if it is 
possible to do it, to put them under Federal jurisdiction. It is not 
a question of taxation, for the State of New Mexico enters no protest. 
I was present when that clause was adopted in the enabling act, and 
not one of the representatives of New Mexico present voted against 
action. It was bona fide. 

Senator Catron. You are mistaken. A vigorous protest was sent. 

Mr. Hubbell. It may have been sent, but those men who were 
present there- 

Senator Catron. You may not have heard it. 

Mr. Hubbell. The State of Arizona is in the same condition. 
The Moqui Indians are Pueblos. There had been no question raised 
by the State of Arizona as to the legality of that when they accepted 
it in their constitution. The Indians have accepted it, and they are 
not taxed in that State. Whether this committee desires to put 
these Indians under the protection of the United States Government 
and the Congress of the United States, if it can possibly be done, I 
think, as a matter of justice and charity to the Indian, it should be 
done, and if not, gentlemen, no matter what other words are said 
here, it is only a question of time when they will be eliminated; their 
property will become the property of others. Our lands are under 
a small tax, and the owners of those lands have been deprived of 
them for no value whatsoever. 

Look at the history of the Indians in California and the Mexican 
people. Look at the history of New Mexico—what it will be in a 
short time. There were 80,000 acres of land which were sold to one 
man in Santa Fe for $4,000. There are a large number of citizens 
who are not able to protect themselves against the advance of the 
progressive element. It is very well for the progressive element to 
speculate upon the land, to acquire land, and it may be a legal right, 
and it may be according to law, yet it is hard upon the poor fellow 
who has not a progressive tendency. It is the steam-roller process, 
from which they will never recover, and it is a question now before 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


51 


the Congress of the United States that whether it can be clone prop¬ 
erly, and if the Congress of the United States can do it so as to protect 
the people of this nation I think it is proper to do so. If it is illegal 
and unconstitutional, then of course they will have to take what the 
future holds for them. 

Senator Catron. Isn’t it true, Mr. Hubbell, that the majority of 
the people in New Mexico are poorer than those people? 

Mr. Hubbell. Well, I suppose it is; I haven’t any statistics. 

Senator Catron. And is it not true that they are just as ignorant 
as these people ? 

Mr. Hubbell. Well, I do not know as to that. 

Senator Catron. They all belong to the Catholic Church, these 
people, as well as the up people? 

Mr. Hubbell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. According to your argument, would you be will¬ 
ing to apply the idea to protect those other people in the same way ? 

Mr. Hubbell. That is a different proposition. You have stated 
here that these Indians are not Indians. I believe, in spite of the 
decision of the courts of the United States, that they are Indians. 
They are known generally as Indians; they are recognized as Indians; 
they have in the past been recognized as Indians; and I believe that 
the law in regard to them should be particular to see that these In¬ 
dians were protected. 

The Chairman. That would be largely a question of law. 

Mr. Hubbell. Yes; that is largely a question of law. 

The Chairman. For the committee and Congress to determine. 

Mr. Hubbell. But the simple question returns, whether you are 
going to save these Indians and save their property. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? Did you have 
some observations you wanted to submit, Father Ketcham? 

Father Ketcham. I have a very brief observation. 

The Chairman. Be as brief as you can, because we have had a very 
protracted hearing, and some of the members of the committee have 
other duties to perform. 

Father Ketcham. I just wish to reiterate what Mr. Hubbell 
has said. It could not have been said much better. I was wonder¬ 
ing whether it is thought that I am here and Father Webber is here 
because these people are Roman Catholics. They are not all Catho¬ 
lics. That is not the reason at all that we are here. 

Senator Catron. No; I did not do it for that reason. I did it 
because they are advanced in civilzation. It ; s rather a compliment 
to them than anything else. 

Father Ketcham. I, of course, know nothing about the legal side. 
I only want to call attention to certain things. One thing is this, 
that in every State where the Indians have come under the State, we 
know that they have lost their property through taxation. That is 
the case everywhere. California affords us a very fine example 
of this. 

Only a very short time ago the Federal Government was called 
upon to appropriate money to buy land for Indians in California, 
who formerly owned land; that is, these Indians owned it. And the 
time will come when the State of New Mexico will be asking the 
United States Government to buy lands for these people, if some 
protection is not offered against the taxation to which they are not 


52 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


accustomed and the greed of the people surrounding the reserva¬ 
tions. 

The question of the intelligence of their neighbors, their Mexican 
neighbors, and the wealth of their Mexican neighbors, in comparison 
with these Indians, made me think of some hearings when the ques¬ 
tion of statehood arose. I should like this committee to read from 
some of the statements made as to the intelligence of the population 
of New Mexico at this time. 

These Indians are Indians that have been wise enough to protect 
themselves in the past, and of course with some help from the Fed¬ 
eral Government. 

I am going to say this, too, that these Indians are somewhat to 
blame—they will pardon me for saying it—but they have been in the 
past deaf to the admonition of their friends; they have thought they 
could maintain always the status they occupied in the past. Their 
friends have advised them to get ready for the change; they tried to 
show them the handwriting on the wall, but they failed to see it. 
Now the time has come when they realize that the handwriting is on 
the wall, and they need the time. They may have been unwise. 
They may not eventually progress, but they do need 25 years within 
which to get ready for taxation and other burdens of statehood. 
I do not want to be considered as interfering with the affairs of the 
State of New Mexico. I am simply here as a friend of the Indian, 
giving my views based upon my observation of Indian matters. 

It is a wonder to me that the State of New Mexico is not pleased 
with this proposition, to tell you the truth. It is true that a large 
amount of land will not be subject to taxation that would otherwise 
be, but at the same time the Federal Government is bearing a little 
of the burden in the way of education for these people’s protection. 
That will relieve the State of certain expenses, and it will also prepare 
these people for better citizenship when the time comes for them to 
go back as citizens of the State of New Mexico. During this time of 
tutelage the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs can see to it that these lands are developed and made pro¬ 
ducing lands. Up to the present time there has been no power to 
force these Indians to do what they should have done. When the 
United States Government wanted to do something with them, they 
always appealed to their status as citizens of the Territory of New 
Mexico. Now they deliberately come under the influence of the 
Federal Government, and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs can 
insist upon them doing what in the past he could not insist upon them 
doing. In that way the State of New Mexico will benefit very much 
from this supervision of the Federal Government. 

Another thing ought to be borne in mind, and that is, as Mr. 
Hubbell said, that legislation can not make Indians. It may or may 
not improve his status as a citizen, but you can not change the nature 
of the man by an act of the legislature. And these people, no mat¬ 
ter what the people of New Mexico call them, are Indians, and will 
always be Indians, so far as that is concerned. They must train 
them up to be citizens, for a landless people as numerous as these 
people are would be a menace to any State. Of course the State 
militia could be called out and could shoot them down, but no State 
wants to resort to any such expedient. If these people become 
pauperized, they will become a menace to the country. They are 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


53 


an industrious people ; they are self-supporting, and I think it would 
be a benefit to the State itself to give these people an opportunity 
to handle their property, and more of a chance than if they were 
subjected to taxation. 

Senator Catron. Just one thing more. I want to call your atten¬ 
tion to this protest in behalf of the State [reading]: 

Whereas the State of New Mexico, by its constitution, Article VIII, section 7, has 
exempted properties of towns from taxation. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Ashurst. For the purpose of the record, I would like to 
say that Mr. Hubbell is a reputable citizen of the State of Arizona- 

Senator Catron. Before you go ahead with that, Senator, I would 
like to read that clause in the constitution, section 7, so that it may 
go in in connection with the matter. [Reading:] 

The property of the United States, the State, and all counties, towns, cities, and 
school districts, and other municipal corporations, public libraries, community ditches 
and all laterals thereof, all church property, all property used for educational or char¬ 
itable purposes, all cemeteries not used or held for private or corporate profit, and all 
bonds of the State of New Mexico, and of the counties, municipalities, and districts 
thereof shall be exempt from taxation. 

Senator Ashurst. For the purpose of the record, I should like to 
interject the remark that Mr. Hubbell is a reputable citizen of the 
State of Arizona, of many years’ residence, and is at present a mem¬ 
ber of the State Senate of the Legislative Assembly of the State of 
Arizona. I make these remarks for the reason that he may be a 
stranger to many members of the committee. 

Father Ketcham. I should like to ask the Senator if I understood 
him to say that these pueblos are actually incorporated ? 

Senator Catron. Yes. 

Father Ketcham. That is news to me. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted a remark, I 
would say that they were incorporated, but the question of whether 
their lands are vested in the corporation has never been determined 
by the courts; the matter is still open. That act is peculiarly drawn. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to 
insert at this point in the record a copy of a report of a full hearing 
which I had with these people at the office yesterday; also, some 
records which we have showing that not only Congress, but the Terri¬ 
tory of New Mexico has by special act of its legislature recognized the 
right and need of these Pueblo Indians for special protection. 

The Chairman. You desire the records specially put into the 
record here? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was there any stenographic report of the pro¬ 
ceedings taken? 

Mr. Abbott. There was a stenographic report taken of the hearing 
of these people in the Indian Office. 

The Chairman. It does not seem to me that the hearing need to be 
included—or would you want to include it ? 

Mr. Abbott. There are some parts of it that I should like to have 
appear in the record. 

The Chairman. It would look to me as though it might be a dupli¬ 
cation. 

Mr. Abbott. Very well; I will not insist upon it. 



54 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


The Chairman. I think the record may be submitted, if that is 
agreeable; or shall we submit the whole transcript? 

Mr. Abbott. There is a great deal of information about these 
people, Mr. Chairman, which ought to be in the record—and material 
and reports which have been made by investigating officials hereto¬ 
fore. 

The Chairman. How extensive is it? 

Mr. Abbott. Not very extensive. 

The Chairman. If it is not extensive, it may be included, if there 
are no objections. 

Mr. Abbott. We would like to include certain statistics that ought 
to be presented here. 

The Chairman. You may submit them here, so that they can be 
printed as a part of the record ? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. I will be glad to submit a copy also to 
Senator Catron. 

The Chairman. Then this paper may be submitted in connection 
with Senator Catron's remarks. 

The report and the statistics referred to are as follows: 

Conference in the Office of the Acting Commissioner, F. H. Abbott, of a Dele¬ 
gation of Pueblo Indians. 


February 7, 1913. 

(Delegation.— Isleta, Santa Ana, and Sandia: Pablo Abeita, secretary of council, 
Marcelino Abeita. Laguna: William Paisano, governor; Ulysses Paisano; Jamie Leeds. 
Cochiti: Santiago Quintana, governor; Juan Montoya. San Juan: Ambrosio Mar¬ 
tinez, governor. Santa Clara: Francisco Naranjo, Juanito Naranjo, Victoriano Sis- 
neros. Taos and Picuris: Domingo Gonzales, governor; Antonio Romero, secretary. 
Acoma: Juan Antonio Martin, governor; Jose Antonio Sarracino, secretary. Delega¬ 
tion accompanied by their attorney, F. C. Wilson, to present trust deeds conveying to 
the Secretary of the Interior their lands in trust for a period of 25 years.) 

Mr. Abbott. I want to say to the delegates who have come from the Pueblos of 
New Mexico that I am very glad, indeed, to see you here, because your presence 
indicates that you are thoroughly alive to your own interests there and to the need 
of some definite protection from some form of government. I had the pleasure about 
two years ago of visiting a number of your pueblos, and I met a large number of the 
members of the Santa Clara Pueblo especially, two of whom I recognize here to-day. 
After that visit in my report to the Secretary of the Interior, I recommended that some 
steps be taken to protect your property rights. I pointed out in that report that under 
present conditions there was doubt as to just how far the Federal Government had 
jurisdiction. There was doubt as to how far the Territorial government had juris¬ 
diction over your affairs. I said that in view of the fact that you paid no taxes on 
your property the representatives of the local Territorial government were indiffer¬ 
ent as to your interests. I said that the Government in Washington should be given 
more control over your affairs; that your property, your lands, should be turned over 
in trust to the Secretary of the Interior, so that the Secretary would have a definite 
jurisdiction, a defined authority, to deal with your interests and to protect your 
property rights, or that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior should be with¬ 
drawn entirely and that you should be turned over to the State government or Terri¬ 
torial government and that branch of the Government be given definite and final 
and complete jurisdiction over your affairs and have complete responsibility for 
protecting you and your property interests. I said, however, that owing to the con¬ 
dition into which your affairs had gotten I believed that your interests would be bet¬ 
ter protected by the Federal Government, as represented by the Secretary of the 
Interior than by the State government, which owing to everything in your past 
history, had become indifferent to your needs and to your welfare. I have said 
these things to you in order that you may know that two years before you had taken 
the action which you have taken, as shown by these papers which you have presented, 
I took the same position that you have now taken, and, therefore, before you presented 
your petition to me I had already agreed with you as to the desirability of carrying 
out what you want to do. While you are here I expect to give every delegate who has 


PUEBLO INDIANS 0!f NEW MEXICO. 


55 


anything on his mind in connection with your interest full opportunity to make a 
complete statement and to have that statement taken down and made a part of the 
record of your negotiations here in Washington. 

In order to save time to-day I am going to ask you to go with me to call upon Sec¬ 
retary Adams, the First Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary himself 
is out of the office, but when he is away the First Assistant represents him, so that 
we can just as properly take up your business officially with the First Assistant Sec¬ 
retary to-day. 

I want him to meet you and know generally what your mission is here and give 
you such time as he feels he can give you to make a statement to him before I finally 
take up the details of your petitions. I think we will now go over to Secretary Adams's 
and then we will set a time after that for further meeting and discussion; unless there 
is some one here now, Mr. Wilson, who cares to make some statement just briefly 
to me before we go. 

Mr. Wilson. I think possibly we better defer that. 

The Interpreter. We would like to go and see Mr. Adams first, if we find he has 
time to give us for a little talk with him. 

Hearing of Above Pueblo Delegation in Office of First Assistant Secretary 

Adams. 


Mr. Wilson. I herewith present to you the trust deeds executed by the Pueblos 
of Santa Clara, Cochiti, and Taos, conveying to the Secretary of the Interior their 
lands in trust for the period of 25 years, together with the minutes of the meetings at 
which the action was authorized by the Indians of each pueblo. 

Secretary Adams. Of course that would require legislation. The Secretary has no 
power at present to undertake the duties imposed on him by that. 

Mr. Wilson. I wondered if under the general powers conferred he would be able 
to accept without legislation. 

Secretary Adams. I do not think so; I am just giving you an offhand opinion, but 
I think it would require legislation, especially as it requires an agreement that all 
improvements made should become the property of the Pueblo, particularly mention¬ 
ing irrigation, etc., which means the application of Government funds, resulting in 
the loss of control over the improvements put in by Government funds after the lands 
reverted to the Indians under the terms of the trust. There is one other thing. It 
requires the Secretary to protect the property. In other words, he is not a mere naked 
trustee; if he were, it might not be of any value. At any rate, so its seems to me. 
It appears to impose conditions on the Secretary to accept and makes his acceptance 
amount to more than the acceptance of a naked trust, in order to have this one protec¬ 
tion for the Pueblos, which would require legislation. 

Mr. Wilson. You understand, Mr. Secretary, that those stipulations were merely 
a continuance of the present Government conditions which have obtained there many 
years. 

Secretary Adams. Certainly, but it has been expended voluntarily. 

Mr. Wilson. But it has the same result at the present time. 

Secretary Adams. Yet as things are at present, Congress might change at any 
moment, whereas if this were signed there would be an obligation. Congress could 
not, say, put in reimbursable improvement. 

Mr. Wilson. Could not that be a condition of the Government’s making such 
improvements? 

Secretary Adams. Yes, but would it be consistent with the contract? And this 
question of protection—the obligations are very broad. It is not simply that the Sec¬ 
retary will do what he finds he can to protect, which is, of course, the only obligation 
he makes now, but that he will protect. 

Mr. Wilson. That is true, of course. We, ourselves, do not know exactly the extent 
of the land which we are conveying. 

Secretary Adams. There is another thing; if the desire of the Indians is to keep 
their land free from taxation, certainly you have got to have this land in trust to the 
Secretary of the Interior. I am not taking your suit in the Supreme Court into con¬ 
sideration. Supposing Judge Pope’s decision stands, as it may; then there ought to be 
legislation by Congress authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the 
United States, to accept that as the property of the United States in trust for the 
Indians; then you get it; it is the property of the United States, of a higher sovereignty 
than the State, and thfe State can’t tax it. 

Mr. Wilson. That is a thing which has been given some thought, and we prepared 
a bill a year ago which has never passed, authorizing the Secretary to accept this 
trust. 

Secretary Adams. I knew there was some legislation pending. 


56 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Wilson. I have never seen any cases to the contrary, or holding that he could 
not accept the trust. 

Secretary Adams. You do not want an idle act. We do not want to go through 
the form of doing something which would accomplish nothing. 

Mr. Wilson. Of course it might be held that it was an idle act; but as to this power 
without legislation, I am merely theorizing. 

Secretary Adams. I will give that consideration. I am just giving you the features 
which strike m<L, I think it would be a good thing if it can be done properly. I do 
not think that it would be a good thing if it were not to have the effect intended, 
because it would simply arouse prejudice in the State authorities without at the same 
time protecting the Pueblos. In other words, if this is not effective they are probably 
better as they are than an effort attempting to take them out and which does not 
take them out. 

Mr. Wilson. I am not looking for much help from the State authorities. This 
telegram I received this morning states that a joint resolution of the senate and house 
of New Mexico was passed protesting against this action, which alone indicates that 
they intended to tax them, which has never been done before either under Spanish 
or Mexican control. 

Secretary Adams. I would not say it intended to tax them, but to keep them where 
they could tax them if they wanted to. They might not intend to tax them—they 
might say: “Here I understand these Pueblo Indians have never voted, yet if they 
are taxable, they are clearly entitled to vote.” Therefore, it may be that they do 
not want to have them get out from under the taxation without settling the voting 
and other things, too. 

Mr. Wilson. Possibly; but I doubt if they intend to give them the rights of citizen¬ 
ship. 

Secretary Adams. They certainly inte.id to tax them, or they want to keep com¬ 
plete sovereignty. 

Mr. Wilson. I might state in connection with that idea that there are, with the 
minutes of each meeting, where the deeds were authorized, showing the presence of 
those who were there and bearing out the recitals of the deeds of trust, statements 
made by the Indians of why they felt the necessity of this move, and the persons 
prese.it also signed a power of attorney authorizing the governor's council to execute 
this deed. 

Secretary Adams. Was there any opposition? 

Mr. Wilson. None in Taos, no.ie in Cochiti, 3 in Santa Clara who opposed out of 
59; practically unanimous in all three. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Secretary, we have during this session of Congress asked again 
to have that act passed, giving the Secretary authority to take over these lands. 

Secretary Adams. Is there any chance? 

Mr. Abbott. I have hoped that with these petitions here, with the presence of 
this delegation showing the very great interest of the Indians in this proposition, 
I can induce the Senate committee to incorporate that bill in the Indian appropri¬ 
ation bill. 

Secretary Adams. Well, now, is the bill pendirg broad enough to include in its 
terms the terms in these deeds? I think that ought to be checked up. 

Mr. Abbott. Yes. 

Secretary Adams. Otherwise we might have to make new deeds or not accom¬ 
plish all we ought to accomplish. 

Mr. Abbott. The Senate committee will have the last meeting before the printing 
of the bill to-morrow forenoon. I will have that checked off to-day, so that if there 
is a question of doubt about that you will have an opportunity to see it if you have 
time this afternoon, so that we will know definitely whether we want to make any 
amendments to that bill pending before the Senate committee. 

Secretary Adams. I suggest, Mr. Abbott, that you or some one from your office 
take that matter up this afternoon with Mr. Howell or Mr. Pollock and check over 
the legal proposition to see whether the bill is broad enough to include the provisions 
that are actually drawn now in this. Of course it does not mean it will pass that 
way, but we certainly want to be consistent. Of course if the provisions do not 
seem wise to you, then that ought to be considered also; and yet looking them over 
I have no objection to the Government's assuming that amount of responsibility and 
burden. I do not see any objection to it. 

Mr. Abbott. It would seem if Congress gives the general authority to the Secre¬ 
tary to do this thirg that unless there are some provisions *that go outside of this 
general authority- 

Secretary Adams. If all he has is a general authority to hold these lands in trust, 
that would not cover the provisions here as to the obligation that there shall be turned 
over to the Pueblos at the end of 25 years, free of any claim, all improvements. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


57 


Mr. Abbott. My notion would be that the bill should definitely provide for taking 
over these lands in trust and then to exercise in connection therewith the power and 
authority bestowed generally upon the Secretary of the Interior in connection with 
Indian affairs. 

Mr. Adams. Here are the two things in this that strike me: I do not mean at all 
the provision as to regulations—that is all right, but the reversion of the land with 
improvements added by the Government during the trust period and the obligation 
to cause suits to be brought to ascertain the extent of their holdings. 

If this trust is accepted, it has a provision to that effect; therefore the bill should be 
broad enough, whether specific or in general terms, to cover that, and we should not 
solely rest upon a bill authorizing us to accept the lands to be held in trust; that is 
something beyond holding the lands in trust; that is an agreement that all improve¬ 
ments put on by the Secretary of the Interior go to the Pueblos. 

Mr. Wilson. Most improvements are ditch work, etc. 

Secretary Adams. I understand, but still there may be some schoolhouses. 

Mr. Wilson. They are on Government land. 

Secretary Adams. At present, title to the condemned land is not in the Indians, 
However, in future, there might be schoolhouses put on their land not condemned, 
as is now the case, but this land is not excepted anywhere. 

Mr. Wilson. The Government has title; they could not convey that. 

Secretary Adams. “Trustee shall cause surveys to be made of the lands above de¬ 
scribed, suits to be brought in competent jurisdiction.” Yes. To what extent does 
that provision require expenditures of Government money? 

Mr. Wilson. We do not know ourselves. 

Secretary Adams. As I was saying to you, Mr. Abbott, that is imposing on the Sec¬ 
retary of the Interior the positive duty of causing surveys to be made; that implies 
cost to somebody, the United States under this act. “Suits to be brought in courts 
of competent jurisdiction, employing counsel, etc., for the purpose of determining the 
exact heir, and upon determination of such matters, the trustees shall,” etc. There 
are these two positive things, the second of which certainly embraces expenditure of 
money of the United States because it is not supposed the Secretary will pay out of 
his private purse; the other of which contemplates whatever the Government spends 
on these lands shall go to the Pueblos. There could not be a reimbursable appropria¬ 
tion such as there have been in connection with other Indians. 

Mr. Abbott. Well, for the Secretary to bind himself to do those specific things 
in consideration of the consent of these people to have this property taken over, I 
think does go far beyond the bill which has been introduced. 

Secretary Adams. Probably it goes beyond the bill as drawn. It may be Congress 
would be willing to go part way, but in the last analysis this is a business proposition. 
We can’t break faith with the Pueblos by accepting a conveyance that imposes cer¬ 
tain duties upon the Government and at the same time have no power to carry out 
those duties. That would put them in as bad a state as now—not improve it—but, 
might make it worse. 

Mr. Abbott. There is another important legal feature. In case the Pope decision 
is upheld by the Supreme Court, would an act of Congress imposing this trust in the 
Secretary of the Interior be constitutional? Have we any right to take the property 
of a citizen of a State, which property is subject to all the laws of that State, from the 
jurisdiction of that State without the action of the proper authorities there? 

Secretary Adams. I should be inclined to think we could. I should be inclined 
to think if I sold land in Massachusetts to the United States Government that Massa¬ 
chusetts could hardly object. 

Mr. Abbott. The point is this: If citizens of a State could escape taxation by trans¬ 
ferring their property to the Secretary of the Interior, it might be that a great many 
other citizens of New Mexico would come here with petitions. 

Secretary Adams. I do not think it would have any effect without his transfer 
being really to the United States Government—that is, the Secretary of the Interior 
being really the arm of the Government. That is why I do not feel an acceptance, 
without legislation by Congress, would be of any effect at all. There are some little 
doubts on the lines you suggest. . 

Mr. Abbott. That just occurs to me as a question that probably will be raised by 
those who object. 

Secretary Adams. They will raise every question, naturally. [At this point Sec¬ 
retary Adams made an engagement with Senator Catron over the telephone to be 
present at a later hearing on this matter in the Indian Office.] Now, these matters 
will be given careful consideration here, gentlemen, with the idea of seeing that we 
do what we can for the Pueblos and also seeing that we do not apparently do some¬ 
thing—give the appearance of doing something which is not done, in fact. I do not 


58 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


know that there is anything more I can say now about the matter. Are there any 
other subjects to be brought up now? 

Mr. Abbott. I think not. I told them over in my office that I, personally, was in 
favor of having some definite governmental authority that had final jurisdiction over 
their affairs, and if we could get jurisdiction in the department that I was in favor of 
that. If we could not, I was in favor of placing the responsibility fully and directly 
upon the State Government for protecting them, and that we could consider this 
question with the view of working out one or the other of those two ways. 

Secretary Adams. Yes; that is all right. 

Mr. Wilson. Would you care to retain any of these copies? 

Secretary Adams. It is only necessary to keep here what it is necessary for Mr. 
Abbott to talk about with our legal department. Having them on my desk would not 
help any. I would not get a chance to look at them. [To the Indians:] I am very 
glad to have seen all of you gentlemen, and hope we can work out something that will 
be of benefit to all of you. 

Continuation of Hearing of Pueblo Indians, on the Matter of Conveying 
Their Lands in Trust to the Secretary of the Interior. 

February 7, 1913. 

Mr. Abbott. Well, Mr. Wilson, you have presented the petitions of the various 
Pueblos, and those petitions, of course, state what those people want. I should like, 
however, to hear from any delegates who are here in connection with this matter or 
any other matter that they care to present. We, perhaps, will not have time to-night 
for all to say what is on their minds, and I suggest that, because we are going to try to 
get before the Senate committee to-morrow morning, the time to-night be used in 
discussing definitely those particular points, and perhaps in selecting some represen¬ 
tative of all these people to make such statements as they care to make before the 
committee to-morrow morning. 

Mr. Wilson. Now, to-night, if it is desired, we can have a statement from those 
Pueblos, which have already executed the deeds which I have in my grip there— 
Taos, Santa Clara, Cochiti—giving you their ideas of why they executed the deeds, 
and in addition to that I would like to have one man from each one of the other Pueb¬ 
los state here why they desire to do the same thing, and if you desire to call upon 
Pablo Abeita from Isleta, which is not represented, but desires to do so. Isleta owns 
120,000 acres of lands, and the Pueblo delegation is here for the purpose of stating 
that they desire to do this, the same thing that three other Pueblos have done. I 
will call on Pablo Abieta first, to make the statement of why Isleta desires to execute 
such a trust deed, putting their lands in trust of the Secretary of the Interior. You 
understand, Mr. Commissioner, Isleta owns 120,000 acres of patented lands—lands 
patented to them by the United States. 

Mr. Abbott. I think I did explain to you, Judge, that the delegations from the 
various pueblos have come with deeds of trust, duly executed, asking the Secretary 
to take over in trust the land and other property of 11 pueblos in New Mexico, and this 
morning we had a very short hearing with Secretary Adams, and I have asked them to 
come this afternoon to make any statments they care to make in support of their propo¬ 
sition to turn over these lands in trust to the Government. 

Judge Medler. I only wish to state, in connection with this matter, this: A day or 
two ago Senator Catron informed me that this delegation was coming on here, and that 
Senator Catron desires to protest the acceptance of any such deeds by the Indian Office 
on the ground that the Indian Department has no authority in law to accept any such 
deeds or to take over any of the lands of the pueblos, and I happened to be here in 
Washington at the. time. Being a citizen of New Mexico, I protest against any such 
action on the part of the Indian Department, because I don’t think it is to the inter¬ 
ests of the people of New Mexico; furthermore, in a day or two I think the Indian 
Department will receive a memorial of the Legislature of New Mexico to that effect, aa 
we have advices that such memorial is about to be passed or is on the way at the pres¬ 
ent time. 

Mr. Abbott. Perhaps in that connection you will be able to explain whether or not it 
is true that one of the main points of objection on the part of the State Legislature of 
New Mexico is that they desire to enact legislation to tax the lands of the Pueblo 
Indians. 

Judge Medler. I won’t say at this time whether the State of New Mexico proposes 
to tax these lands or not. I don’t believe that the Legislature of New Mexico, under 
its compact which will be found in its constitution, will in the near future tax those 
lands, although under the law and decision of the courts they have a right to do so. 
I believe that the State of New Mexico will keep faith. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 59 

Mr. Abbott. Your idea is that that provision of the enabling act which exempts the 
Indian country from taxation is unconstitutional? 

Judge Medler. It is unconstitutional, but I don’t believe that this time the State of 
New Mexico will take the position that it wants to violate the faith of the compact it 
made in its constitution when the provisions were put into the constitution; but I don’t 
think it is right that these Indian pueblos in New Mexico—this is my personal opin¬ 
ion—should be allowed to transfer their lands to the United States and become wards 
of the Government, because there is no foundation for it in law. In the first place the 
Government.has no more right to accept these deeds and accept these Pueblos as its 
wards, than it would have to take the deeds of my property and take me as a ward. 

Mr. Abbott. You base that assertion on the theory that the Pueblos are citizens? 

Judge Medler. I base it on the theory that the Pueblos are citizens, as decreed by 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the United States v. Santistevan 
(94 U. S. Rep., 619), and also in the case of the United States v. Joseph (94 U. S. Rep., 
614), and as found by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico 
in the case of the United States v. Mares & Santistevan (14 N. Mex., 1), that these 
people were citizens of the United States, and as such that the laws of the United 
States did not apply to them as being Indians in the Indian country. 

Mr. Abbott. What about the liquor laws of the United States? 

Judge Medler. I prosecuted that case myself as United States attorney at that 
time. The Supreme Court held that the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico were citi¬ 
zens, and as such that the laws of the United States making it punishable to introduce 
liquor into the Indian country were not applicable to the Pueblo Indians in the then 
Territory of New Mexico. 

Mr. Abbott. Judge, on what grounds, aside from legal grounds, do you protest 
against this? 

Judge Medler. I protest against this on this particular ground: These people are 
citizens of New Mexico. I believe that as citizens they should adopt and be made to 
adopt the 3ame status as any other citizens of New Mexico who were citizens at the 
time of the ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. At that time there were 
many Mexicans in New Mexico who occupied the same status under the law as these 
Pueblo citizens. They were given an opportunity to elect whether they would 
become citizens of the United States or citizens of Mexico. By their failure to elect 
at that time to become citizens of Mexico they, by virtue of that treaty, became citi¬ 
zens of the United States, and as such were subject to the same laws as governed all 
other citizens. Their lands, properties, and rights are subject to the laws of the United 
States. There were many thousands of people in New Mexico at that time who did 
become citizens of the United States, same as these Indians. They have amalgamated 
themselves, so to speak, with the people of New Mexico and now vote and exercise 
rights and privileges of citizens of New Mexico. I refer to what we call the Spanish - 
Mexican-American population of New Mexico. There has never been any reason, in 
fact or law, why the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico should occupy any different 
status with respect to their relations to the Government and the ownership of their 
lands than those people who, upon the adoption of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
became citizens of the United States. 

Mr. Abbott. Then you think it was an unwise piece of legislation when their prop¬ 
erty was exempted from taxation? 

Judge Medler. I do. It was only by the exercise of what I might say was a false 
sentiment toward the Indian that any such statute as that was adopted by the Congress 
of the United States. I might cite, for instance, if you take the Rio Grande Valley 
in its most productive portion, from Albuquerque north to what we call the Rock 
Canyon, 5 miles north of Albuquerque, we meet the south boundary of the San Dia 
pueblo. Their lands extend from what we call Alameda to Bernalillo. There is 
about 15,000 acres of the best bosky lands of the Rio Grande Valley in the possession 
of the San Dia Indians. They cultivate 200 acres themselves and lease to one or two 
Mexicans 100 to 200 acres more. These lands at the present time comprise practically 
all of the cultivatable lands between Albuquerque and Bernalillo. From Bernalillo 
north about two miles you reach the southern boundary of the Santa Ana Reservation, 
which runs up close to the town of Algodones. There is then a stretch about a mile 
where that is located, and from there and farther up the river, some 7 or 8 miles, is the 
San Felipe Reservation. Then the Santo Domingo Reservation. The Santo Domingo 
Reservation and the San Felipe practically join at a place about halfway,.on a rail¬ 
road siding at Alto. Then joining Santo Domingo Reservation on the north is Cochiti, 
which takes all the land on the west side of the river to the Rock Canyon. I have a 
statement from the assayer of San Doval County, in which is located San Felipe—San 
Felipe, Santa Ana, and Cochiti—in which he told me there is not over 3,500 acres of 
that rich river bottom land in the possession of individuals outside of these Indian 


60 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


pueblos. You take south of Albuquerque, about 8 miles, is the Isleta pueblo, and 
their pueblo is about 6 miles wide, so that in all of that Rio Grande Valley of about 
40 or 50 miles in extent, the majority of that land is held by these Indian pueblos 
in common, not subject to taxation, and the best part of it is land that should be 
cultivated and subject to taxation. 

1 doubt very much whether any deeds that this department would get from these 
Indian pueblos would be valid, because every man, woman, or child in those Indian 
pueblos has an interest in that land, and any resolution you might get by their prin- 
cipales or alcaldes, authorizing conveyance of any such deed would be invalid and 
would not transfer any title. They can not convey the interests of the unknown heirs 
of the various Indians that have died in the last few years. I might say that I was 
interested in a case, and Mr. Pablo Abieta will bear me out, that did more to break up 
the tribal government of the pueblos than any other in New Mexico. That was where 
they prosecuted a man in Isleta by the name of Baca (?) for renting a house and some prop¬ 
erty of his to a man, not a member of the pueblos, by the name of Clifton, for merchan¬ 
dise purposes. He was put in the stocks, confined in the local jail for three days, in 
midwinter. He was released on a habeas corpus proceedings. A judgment was ren¬ 
dered against them, for false imprisonment, of $200. After a meeting of the Pueblos 
they came to Washington to protest to President Roosevelt, against the courts of New 
Mexico imposing any judgment for the imposing of their fines and penalties imposed 
in their tribal councils. He told them to go back there and obey the laws of the land 
that they lived under. That is merely an instance, to show what has been the condi¬ 
tion out there. Since that time I have not heard of any of those Pueblos attempting 
to enforce by fine or penalty any of their own regulations. They now go to the courts. 

Mr. Abbott. Judge, I would like to ask you if it is not true that in spite of all you 
have said about the right of these people to citizenship, the sole responsibility of pro¬ 
viding schools for these people for many years has devolved upon a Federal Govern¬ 
ment? I would like to ask if it is not true? Is it not true that the sole responsibility 
for enforcing liquor laws and protecting these people against the use of intoxicants has 
devolved upon the Federal Government, and is it not true that they have lost many 
thousands of acres of land in spite of all that both the Federal and Territorial Govern¬ 
ments could do for them? 

Judge Medler. No. They have lost no land except some in Santa Clara or San Ilde- 
fonso Reservation, which was received by a man by the name of Hogan. 

Mr. Abbott. You are assuming that the claims- 

Judge Medler (interposing). They have lost no lands, because their lands were 
granted to them by special act of Congress, to the community as a whole, and those 
lands are fixed by surveys, as you will find upon the maps of the State of New Mexico. 

None of those Indians of those reservations have been authorized to grant or sell any 
lands, and none of them have. If any have, the grantees under such deeds have 
acquired no title. But I do not know of my knowledge—and have lived in New 
Mexico 30 years—of individauls acquiring rights on these reservations as against In¬ 
dians. That is, except one man by the name of E. F. Hogan, in one pueblo north of 
Santa Fe. 

Mr. Abbott. I think our records show that many of these Indians at least are not in 
possession of land which Mr. Wilson, their attorney, thinks they are entitled to, and 
our records also indicate that there has been an absolute lack of anything like regular 
government among the Pueblos; that while you say that you have succeeded in over¬ 
turning the tribal form of government which existed among the Pueblos, our records 
indicate that there has been no definite kind of government substituted for what has 
been taken away. 

Judge Medler. They have the same government, the laws of the Territory of New 
Mexico. They are equal to those of any State, so far as the protection of property is 
concerned. They are organized under the laws of New Mexico in the name of 
Pueblos for the purpose of maintaining their rights. They have never failed to insist 
upon their rights. As the instance of that I might state where some years ago an irriga¬ 
tion company tried to condemn a right of way through the San Felipe and the Santa 
Anna Reservations in Bernalillo County, in which these Indians resisted the right of 
the surveyors even to go on the land and survey a right of way for a canal or ditch over 
this land, and the only way the survey was secured was by bringing proceedings and 
confining them in jail for contempt. 

Mr. Abbott. But is it not true, as a matter of fact, Judge, that wherever the Terri¬ 
torial officials have interested themselves in the affairs of the Pueblos there, it has been 
to interest themselves in the case of the party adverse, instead of in their behalf? 

Judge Medler. No; I would not say that that is true. I would not say or charge 
that any Territorial official has ever been so derelict. 

Mr. Abbott. I have never lived in New Mexico, and have a high opinion of the 
citizens whom I have met, so I intend no reflection. 



PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


61 


Judge Medler. What I do say is that these Pueblo Indians, so long as I have lived 
in New Mexico, have never sought their right to vote or pay taxes, and so, just previous 
to the time Congress passed the law to prevent taxation, that attempt was made to tax 
their lands. 

Mr. Abbott. Can you tell me why it was that the Federal Government found it 
necessary to take on any supervision or any jurisdiction whatever over the affairs of 
the Pueblo Indians, if all that you say about the ability of these people to assume the 
duties of citizenship was true? 

Judge Medler. If you want my own opinion of why the Federal Government 
assumed jurisdiction which under law they never had, the Federal Government had 
no more right than over the citizens of Chicago. 

Mr. Abbott. Suppose the Government had not gone in there; would the Territorial 
government have provided schools? 

Judge Medler. Exactly when the decision of the Supreme Court held that you 
could not prosecute men for selling liquor to Indians, the legislature passed a law 
preventing the selling of liquor to such Indians. 

Mr. Abbott. And that was done, as I remember the case, through the direct interest 
and upon the initiative of the Federal representatives. 

Judge Medler. They perhaps were particularly interested in seeing it done; but 
such a law was passed. New Mexico has never failed in any way to take care of these 
people and protect them. 

Mr. Abbott. I want to explain this. We are perhaps wandering away from what 
we have come for; but let me make this clear. So far as our records show, and so far 
as my own observations go, there is to-day no definite government among the Pueblos 
in New Mexico to afford them practical education, practical protection of their persons 
and their property rights, and the thing that this department is interested in is getting 
some definite jurisdiction that will afford them that protection; and the records that 
we have do not show that the people of the State are prepared, or so disposed, to give 
these people the peculiar protection to which their weakness and their present con¬ 
dition entitle them. And that is the only reason why the department is interested 
in recommending the increase of its jurisdiction in the premises. In other words, if 
there was anything in the present situation there that would indicate that the State 
of New Mexico was disposed, and was able, to take over these Indians, and to afford 
them the protection which they need, or in the liquor laws of the Territory, and should 
you provide schools to which they are entitled, and laws which would give their prop¬ 
erty rights protection equal to that given to every citizen of the Territory, there would 
be "no disposition on the part of the department to even recommend the increase of 
its authority. But I think you will agree with me on this point, Judge, that under 
present conditions therfe is an absolute lack of definiteness of limitation as between 
the State or the Territory and the Federal Government in the matter of its jurisdiction 
over the various affairs of these people. 

Judge Medler. In reply to that, I only have to state, if my recollection serves me 
right, some years ago, soon after the adoption of our compulsory education act, which 
requires every child over the age of 6 and under 15 to be sent to school for a certain 
number of months, that the attempt was made at the pueblo of Isleta to require them 
to send their children to the county schools, and they would not do it. I venture to 
say I can show you the records. 

Mr. Wilson. That was a proceeding brought by Mr. Perry, superintendent Albu¬ 
querque Indian School for the purpose of coercing some of the Isleta to bring them 
to a boarding school, to a Government day school, and it was done. 

Judge Medler. They had to invoke a Territorial statute to do it. These people 
have valuable lands, if they would submit themselves to the same tax as other citizens 
they could have better schools than the others in New Mexico. Before you go on, let 
me say in the county of Dona Ana, in which I now live, in southern New Mexico, 
there were several tribes of Indians who did not maintain their tribal relations, they 
have mingled with the people of their communities. You would not know they are 
Indians. They vote in elections. The only way you would know they are Pueblos 
is on certain feast days, Guadalupe Hidalgo Day, they have feast dances. Eighty- 
seven of them voted in the last election in New Mexico. They own their lands in 
Dona Ana County, they have been very productive, they have amalgamated. If you 
met them on the street you could not tell them from Mexican-American citizens you 
see there. 

Mr. Abbott. I have no quarrel with your idea that property everywhere, if possible, 
ought to be burdened with the expense of schools, roads, and that sort of thing, but I 
do not understand that the courts have determined—I do not understand that the 
courts have a right to determine—the citizenship of these Indians, if I remember 
this correctly. Citizenship can not finally be conferred upon these people, and the 


62 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


department can not finally take its hands entirely off these Indians until there is fur¬ 
ther legislation on the part of Congress. 

Judge Medler. Now you are getting down to the legal aspect of it. These people 
were citizens under the laws of Mexico; they were recognized as occupying the highest 
status of citizenship before that territory was acquired by the United States. The 
Supreme Court of the United States has so held in the case of United States v. Santa- 
stevan (supra). It was a case in which the people in the pueblo of Taos had acquired 
some of the Ojo Caliente, and a suit of ejectment was brought in the name of the In¬ 
dians, and the Supreme Court of the United States, as far back as 1894, has held that 
these Pueblo Indians occupying the status of citizens under Mexico occupied the 
status of citizens under the United States, and that the United States has no jurisdic¬ 
tion over them. The Indian Department has seen fit to go out through its agents and 
exercise a sort of supervisory jurisdiction ovet them. They don’t claim to be Indian 
agents; the superintendents of the various Indian schools claim to have jurisdiction 
to settle their disputes and report to the Indian Department what is best for them. 
There has not been a word of authority that would authorize the payment of a United 
States attorney for these Indians, except the appropriation act. 

Mr. Abbott. If I understand the situation, the situation there would have been 
very much worse than it is now if the department had not assumed that jurisdiction, 
even if it did not have it. It is the conditions that prevail among the people; it is 
the condition into which their land titles have been gotten, and the failure to assume 
responsibility relating to schools, which make it necessary. 

Judge Medler. The department never attempted to assume jurisdiction over the 
Indians until the decision of the courts that the lands were subject to taxation? 

Mr. Wilson. Since 1876. May I ask a question, Judge Medler? Are you aware 
that the Supreme Court has held recently, and also the circuit court of appeals, that 
the question of citizenship has nothing to do with the relation of guardian and ward 
between the Government and the Indians? 

Judge Medler. They have not reversed the Heff case. 

Mr. Wilson. They have restricted it to definite statutes of the United States which 
have given up jurisdiction of the Indians over to the State authorities. That case has 
been restricted definitely to that case. Now, here we have a case where the United 
States has never given up any jurisdiction, because provision is made in the enabling 
act to retain jurisdiction. 

Judge Medler. And by the decision of Judge Pope in the Sandoval case that pro¬ 
vision in the enabling act and the constitution of New Mexico is absolutely void. It 
is pending in the Supreme Court. I think this department could very well wait 
until the status of these people is determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

Mr. Abbott. The department has not at all decided whether it feels it has the 
authority to take over these lands in trust without an act of Congress. 

Judge Medler. As an individual citizen of New Mexico—I have lived there in 
close proximity to these Pueblos, and I know something of their habits. I have 
visited them, and I know them—something of their mode of life. The Indian Depart¬ 
ment might think that it is pursuing the work of humanity if it takes them in its charge 
and attempts to become their guardian. 

Mr. Abbott. It is pursuing the same policy which Congress has asked the Indian 
Office to pursue with respect to all Indians of the country, and I think that history 
shows very clearly in connection with the Indians of every State where there have been 
Indians that where the Government has turned over certain functions to State authori¬ 
ties they did not have the protection they have under the Federal Government. 

Judge Medler. You assume the people of New Mexico are not going to discharge 
their duty to their citizens? 

Mr. Abbott. It has been true in my own State, and I think we have as high a class 
of citizens in Nebraska as in any State in the Union. I know that Indians that have 
been living in a local community where they are subject to the influence and control 
of the people immediately about them, who naturally are very largely controlled by 
selfish motives—I know they are not protected in the same way that they are where 
they have the protection of a neutral, disinterested government. 

Judge Medler. Oh, if the Indian Department wants to take charge of these people 
on the ground that it needs to become their natural guardians, that is a different propo¬ 
sition. I believe I could name lots of people in New Mexico that would like to have 
the Government take charge of them, who are not Indians, if it will take their 
property, manage it, exempt it from taxation, and return it back at the end of 25 
years. The purpose of government is to teach people to become- 

Mr. Abbott (interposing). Which has been the definite purpose of this Government 
with respect to its Indians. 

Judge Medler. That is a different proposition. These are not tribal Indians. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 63 

Mr. Abbott. I must say from the observation I have made they are in much worse 
condition to-day than most of our tribal Indians are. 

Father Ketcham. I think I know—if there is anyone who knows the Pueblo 
Indian it is the priest who has been there since the Spanish came there, and they are 
a unit in wanting more protection, more Federal supervision over the Pueblos. They 
are also good citizens of New Mexico; they are not antagonists of New Mexico. 

Judge Medler. We have very little trouble; so far as crime is concerned, prac¬ 
tically none. 

Mr. Abbott. Well, Judge, if your State had a definite program to offer and you 
could take over these Pueblo Indians to-day and show the department that vou were 
prepared to give them better schools, better instruction, more protection, than they 
are getting to-day, or better protection than they could get if we had more authority 
oyer them, I would be glad to favor the turning over of this trust; but I don’t agree 
with you at all that under present law we have no duty at all with respect to these 
people, if your theory is correct we are trespassers in New Mexico now in every par¬ 
ticular. 

Judge Medler. As a matter of law, I think you are, so far as these Indians— 
Pueblos—are concerned. 

Mr. Wilson. Judge, are you aware that these people were under the guardianship 
of the government under both Spanish and Mexican Governments; that they did 
enjoy the special protection of the laws of both? 

Judge Medler. Only as to preserving their own mode of government. 

Mr. Wilson. That they were exempt from taxation? 

Judge Medler. No; I won’t agree to that. 

Mr. Wilson. If I should show you the laws of Mexico, would I convince you of that? 

Judge Medler. In answering to the question of the assistant commissioner I will 
say if these people would come in and pay their proportionate share of the taxation 
for the support of schools, taxation for the land they own would pay for better schools 
than the United States is now providing them with. 

Mr. Abbott. Do you refer to boarding schools? 

Judge Medler. I refer to those little schoolhouses in each pueblo, that the United 
States has built. 

Mr. Wilson. Do you know of a community in New Mexico having 500 inhabit¬ 
ants that has in its community a schoolhouse costing over three to five hundred dollars, 

Judge Medler. I know of several. Messilla- 

Mr. Wilson (interposing). A State institution. 

Judge Medler. No; it is a State schoolhouse. You could go on and find several, 
You take over in Lincoln County; you take the town of Carrizoza, it has a schoolhouse 
costing $8,000. I think there are 250 people there now. 

Mr. Wilson. That supplies a large surrounding country, then. 

Judge Medler. No; it does not. 

Mr. Wilson. How much tributary country? 

Judge Medler. That schoolhouse at Carrizoza supplies not more than 3 or 4 miles 
outside the immediate precinct. 

Mr. Wilson. It supplies people coming from around the surrounding country? 

Judge Medler. I would not say there were over 250 people. You will find there a 
two-story brick school with eight rooms. 

Mr. Wilson. I know through the northern counties there are no schoolhouses such 
as exist among these Pueblo Indians. 

Judge Medler. I have seen the schoolhouse at Cochiti and San Felipe. 

Mr. Wilson. There is one now building at Cochiti costing $6,000. 

Judge Medler. I want to say, in order to make the position of Senator Catron and 
myself plain, we take the position, from such conversations as I have had with Senator 
Catron, that the matter of the supervision of those Pueblo Indians by the Indian 
Department is entirely foreign to any authority that it has under the statutes of the 
United States, and that these Pueblo Indians are citizens of New Mexico, and as such 
have the same rights in New Mexico as other citizens, and that the Indian Department 
can not make any distinction, so far as taking charge and control of their lands, than it 
could any other citizens of New Mexico, nor could it do so under the decisions of the 
Supreme Court of the United States without the consent of the State of New Mexico. 
And that while there is a compact in the constitution of the State and also a provision 
in the enabling act that the lands of these Pueblo Indians are especially exempted 
from taxation, that under a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States such 
compact is entirely void and of no binding effect upon the State of New Mexico, and 
if the Indian Department should see fit to take over these lands and become the 
trustee, that this would not prevent the State of New Mexico, at any time it saw fit, 
taxing the lands as the property of these citizens. 


64 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Abbott. I think it has been well to get the protest in this form in our record 
here. I told the Senator the other day that he should have an opportunity to have 
a full hearing; I think you have represented him here. 

Judge Medler. He would have liked to have been present. I could not represent 
him as he could represent himself. 

Mr. Abbott. I, of course, can not indorse the view you take from a legal standpoint 
or the other point of view. 

Judge Medler. I have no present interest except as a citizen of the State of New 
Mexico. 

Mr. Abbott. I should like to hear from some of the others. Mr. Wilson, perhaps 
you would like to make a statement. 

Mr. Wilson. I think the legal proposition, so far as stated by Judge Medler, will 
soon be passed upon by the Supreme Court, and it is not well to pass upon it unless 
necessary; but it seems that the question of taxation is fully covered by the guaranty 
of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in view of the fact that they were exempt 
both under Mexican and Spanish Governments that the guaranties of that treaty, 
which guarantee them the same rights and privileges which they had under the 
Mexican Government, could be invoked on the part of the United States, and that 
the courts would necessarily have to agree that Congress could and should exempt 
them in view of the obligation arising out of that treaty. As far as the general situa¬ 
tion is concerned, I want to say that the State authorities have already shown that 
fault which the commissioner has already pointed out with reference to other States. 
At Taos in the month of October we had four well-defined liquor cases to present 
Under the State statute. We endeavored to get them subpoenaed, and the foreman 
even refused to issue subpoenas, and we didn’t get before the grand jury. It was 
not the fault of the prosecuting official; he said he would be only too glad to prosecute 
if presented. 

Judge Medler. Would the fact of these lands being deeded to the United States 
be a remedy? 

Mr. Wilson. When we created them into Indian country we could remedy that. 
I point that out to indicate the tendency. 

Judge Medler. You think a jury composed of the same class of people sitting on 
a county jury would decide differently than on a State Federal court? 

Mr. Wilson. United States juries are drawn from all over the State and do not 
have the same prejudice which a local jury has. As regards questions of Indian 
lands being more or less dissipated in one way or another, I state from my own knowl¬ 
edge there have been thousands of acres lost, to Indians through squatters who have 
been on lands for many years, where titles have accrued under color of title to the 
persons holding the land, and there are increasing encroachments by the fences. 
It is clear to me that money to prosecute is necessary. The Indians can do nothing. 
The State won’t appropriate, and the Government will, giving us another reason for 
obtaining Government help, so that we can get Government money for the purpose 
of defeating such encroachments. As regards the schools, anyone who knows any¬ 
thing about the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico knows that Government schools have 
been most instrumental for what progress has been made. Two boarding schools at 
Albuquerque and Santa Fe and schools which have been placed in the pueblos have 
long terms, for money is available, whereas in Mexican precincts three or four months 
is all they have, and the Government schools are better conducted. As regards 
Indians in Dona Ana County, they are Isletas of Texas. This pueblo has long since 
gone out of existence, having lost "the lands by means we are trying to avoid now. 

Judge Medler. I referred to those at Tortugu. 

Mr. Wilson. Probably you won’t remember the Texas case by which they lost 
their grant. I can’t give you the name, but I know such a case was had. I think that 
is all I need to state as to that. In general, the commissioner’s statements with refer¬ 
ence to the deficiencies existing in all State administration of Indian affairs exist in 
New Mexico. New Mexico is no exception to the rule, and I doubt if it would prove 
an exception in the handling of Pueblo Indian affairs. 

The legal questions which have been raised by Judge Medler I think will be dis¬ 
posed of by the Supreme Court, and it is not necessary to make a statement of my 
position. I differ with you upon your interpretation of these decisions. There is 
no use in argument; it will be passed upon by the Supreme Court. 

Judge Medler. I take the ground the Indian Department would not have authority 
to take the deeds except on authority of Congress. 

Mr. Wilson. That bill has been introduced. 

Mr. Abbott. The bill has been, introduced and the department has recommended 
favorable action. 

Judge Medler. But not passed. 

Mr. Abbott. Not yet. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


65 


Mr. Wilson. That is all so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Abbott. I think the presence of these Indians here at their own expense, when 
they have been gradually losing ground under the application of local laws there as 
■enforced largely by local officers, one of the best arguments why something of some 
kind should be done. 

Judge Medler. I will ask you if you are aware there was recently an injunction 
proceeding brought against their coming here at the expense of those Pueblos. 

Mr. Wilson. Do you know the facts? 

Judge Medler. I saw that in the papers which you showed me; it was not unani¬ 
mous. 

Mr. Wilson. There were 3 opposing Indians out of 59 dwelling in that pueblo. 

Judge Medler. I do not see how you can take the lands of people who hold lands 
in common without their consent. Every man, woman, and child has an interest in 
that land. 

Mr. Wilson. Again, you have another legal proposition which courts will be called 
upon to pass upon; such a case is now pending, and the question of who the title is 
in is a question which no court has ever passed upon. The patent runs “ to the pueblo 
of Cochiti” or Santa Clara, as the case may be. 

Judge Medler. My legal opinion would be it would follow the case of Hobart against 
the pueblo of Santa Clara, in which it is held that every man, woman, and child has 
an interest and that they are held in common. 

Mr. Wilson. A case is now pending, a similar case, to confirm the title in these 
Indians, called Geo. W. Bond against The Unknown Heirs of Jacinta Paleaz, a case 
involving the Indian grants confirmed by act of Congress. 

Judge Medler. I only want to let the Commissioner know there are some people 
in New Mexico who object to this, and perhaps in a day or two you might have some¬ 
thing from the legislature showing this to be a fact. 

Mr. Wilson. The resolution has already passed objecting to the conveyance of these 
lands in trust. 

Mr. Abbott. The difficulty I see about your objection is that it is based entirely 
upon theoretical grounds. If objections come here to this department which point 
out that the actions which we are recommending are against the interests of these 
Indians, and these objections are accompanied by some definite constructive program 
that would provide something better for these Indians than they now have or we could 
give them, I would be very glad indeed to fall in line with those who come from New 
Mexico with their protests. We have no interest except as to doing the thing which 
seems to be the most practical thing under all the circumstances to relieve and improve 
the condition of these Indians. 

Judge Medler. In reply to that, I can only say if it is the policy of the Indian 
Department to consider the interests of the Indians alone, regardless of what the law 
might be, and the rights of the State of New Mexico, and what the people of New 
Mexico might think should be the law and policy applicable to its own citizens, then 
I don’t see that we could serve any purpose by making any protest. 

Mr. Abbott. If we could agree upon the law in the matter- 

Judge Medler (interposing). I think you would better find out what the law is. 

Mr. Abbott. If we could find out that—our duty toward the Indians under existing 
law—I think we would not need to debate the question at all. 

I would like to hear from some of the members of the Pueblo delegation. Mr. Nori, 
have you something you would like to say? 

Mr. Nori. Now, I am not very much conversant with this matter, only I was just 
wondering what interests he was espousing, whether he was talking for the delegation of 
Indians, or whether just in a general way. I come from the Lagunas, and I know my 
people have no land at all. He is talking of a region where it is very different, and I 
was just wondering whether he was conversant with my section of the country 
whether- 

Judge Medler (interposing). You have some land up that river there that recently 
the Santa Fe Railway found they had to pay- 

Mr. Wilson (interposing). It was $20,000. That was all the real good land that the 
Acomas have. Acoma and Laguna were on San Jose River, where they had very 
little cultivable land. They took the most valuable portion from them when they 
took that strip at Acoma. The Indians of Laguna got $8,000 for quite a large acreage 
running from the east boundary of the San Juan Gigante, to the west boundary of the 
Santa Ana purchase, both of which grants belonged to the pueblo Laguna. 

Mr. Nori. Another thing that might be brought up, if there is such a prejudice 
among the people of the State of New Mexico as the judge has said, if this matter is 
turned over to the State where there is this prejudice, it will be shown against the 


80874—13-5 



66 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Indians. * It seems to me that it is only some special minor interests, however, that are 
opposing these things, from what I have heard. 

Judge Medler. Mr. Commissioner, if I may, I think the record shows the Indian 
Pueblos own about, nearly, 950,000 acres of land. 

Mr. Wilson. Seven hundred and fifty thousand. 

Judge Medler. We looked that up the other day; I think we asked for some infor¬ 
mation from the department the other day. Seven hundred and fifty thousand acres 
of land in New Mexico represent quite a valuable area that the people of New Mexico* 
should have some interest in. 

Mr. Wilson. But it is owned by the Indians. 

Mr. Nori. It seems to me that it would be all right if they should receive the same 
legal protection, but from what I can understand from Mr. Wilson, they do not seem 
to get it. They must have some kind of protection, or else be just between the devil 
and the deep sea all the time. 

Mr. Wilson. Judge Medler is very anxious to have us go ahead and prosecute the 
case to the limit, 

Father Ketcham. It is difficult for me to understand why there should be a deter¬ 
mined opposition on the part of the State of New Mexico on this question, because the 
people of the State know that the Indians own the land, it is their land, and anyone 
that has observed conditions in New Mexico during the last years knows of the great 
progress made by these people from education that was received in the boarding 
schools which the State of New, Mexico will not think of keeping up. They sent 
their children abroad to Carlisle and different places, and they are going back speaking 
English and making good progress. This is for the benefit of the State; it is solid 
progress. Indians are beginning to speak English, and acquire something of our 
ways, and I should think it would be to the interest of the State to encourage this as 
much as possible. It is only temporary. It is not to last forever, but is to give the 
Indians time to really get on their feet. We know in other States the Indian goes 
under in his struggle with the white man; that is a matter of experience. I am from 
Oklahoma, but I know New Mexico, too. I know what is happening in Oklahoma and 
other States; the Indian is pushed on so as to make room for the white man. Unless 
there are certain people who want the lands of these Indians, I don’t see why there 
is this opposition. The State is relieved from supporting the schools, the Govern¬ 
ment pays all the expense; the Indian is gaining, the State is gaining, in its citizen¬ 
ship; I really don’t see why there should be much opposition. 

Judge Medler. The opposition, I see it, is this: I want to see some of these lands 
in New Mexico brought under cultivation. I might state my own personal views. 
Notwithstanding the compact made in the constitution and enabling act, which we 
were required to make in order to get statehood, that, I think, it is a shame that these 
thousands of acres of raw land should lie without cultivation. People around have to 
pay the burden of government, and these Pueblos won’t allow anyone to come in, 
and won’t allow anyone to lease it. 

Mr. Abbott. That is one of the very strongest reasons why I recommend that the 
department shall be given a definite jurisdiction over these lands. If we had such 
jurisdiction we would be in a position to use our energies with the Pueblo Indians to 
get them to cultivate the lands, and if they didn’t cultivate them, to lease them. 

Judge Medler. They tried to get a lease with some of the Pueblos by which the 
lands could be put under cultivation. They offered to lease them on terms by which 
the Indians would get a percentage of the crops, and after a certain term would get the 
improvements. You couldn’t do anything with them. 

Mr. Abbott. I think that is entirely true. I don’t wonder that it has been impos¬ 
sible to do anything with these Indians. As Mr. Nori says, they have been between the 
devil and the deep sea. They have not known who had authority. Individuals who 
seemed to have authority would advise the Indians to do this, or not to do that, and 
some one else would come along and advise them to do another thing. There has been 
no one representing either the State or the Federal Government who had the definite 
authority to say “I have authority to insist that you do this or you do that.” 

Judge Medler. But how would you remedy this? 

Mr. Abbott. Just as we remedy it everywhere. Some one has authority to make 
leases. 

Judge Medler. Do you know in the Navajo Reservation where they recently had 
oil strikes on the edge of the reservation, you can’t make a reservation or secure a 
location from the Secretary of the Interior because that is an Executive order 
reservation? 

Mr. Abbott. That is true, and there is legislation now pending to remedy it. 

Judge Medler. We tried to get such legislation four or five years ago, but we 
couldn’t get it. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 67 


Mr. Abbott. That would r ot be true as regards the Pueblos’ lands, because the lands 
belong to them and the councils would have authority to permit leases. 

Mr. Wilson. That reference to leasing ai d similar propositions was put up to me by 
the Sandia Indians, and I told them that I would be very glad to pass on any lease 
and help them get the thh g through in shape so that they would be protected. I 
understand that the Sandias told these people that. That was the last they have 
heard. Who they were I don’t know. I don’t know whether it was the same crowd. 
It occurred since I have been in office. I recommended that they lease their lands 
undtr proper conditions, and I would pass upon them. They never were sent to me, 
and I assume the proposition was r ot made in good faith, otherwise they would have 
followed it up. 

Judge Medler. I believe the policy should be to make citizens out of these Indians. 
They have been tryi g to educate them. They have educated a lot of these Indians 
in the various pueblos. They go back to the old tribal customs, and you would not 
know they had been educated. The Gover me t will take jurisdiction over them, 
and take care of them, a d they will always be that way until you let them get out and 
be respo sible for themselves. 

Mr. Abbott. We have some pretty good ones; Mr. Nori and several others. 

Judge Medler. They are able to take care of themselves. They have their homes, 
they are prosperous. Mr. Abeita’s brothers have a merchandise store, and yet you 
say he should not be a citizen of New Mexico and assume the responsibilities of citi¬ 
zenship. 

Mr. Abbott. It is true Mr. Abeita is very competent, yet he is here asking to have 
the Government take this action. 

Pablo Abeita. It seems to me, Mr. Medler has some- 

Judge Medler. I have not seen it for the last two or three years. 

Pablo Abeita. It seems to me what New Mexico is after is the land; I can prove 
that. 

Judge Medler. Prove it. 

Pablo Abeita. It seems that squatters come in here on that land. We have no 
protection whatever. I can cite you a case that was recently in the courts in Berna¬ 
lillo County. An Indian had a little pony run away from him; a Mexican took hold 
of it and ran his on top of the Indian’s brand. We had the cattle inspector, Mr. Dan 
Horn, to take the matter before the grand jury, and they had a trial there, and the Mexi¬ 
can jury saw the Mexican’s brand on top of the Indian brand. The Mexican said he 
made a mistake, and the Mexican jury acquitted this man. 

Judge Medler. That was not the first time there was a miscarriage by trial by 
jury. 

Mr. Abbott. Is that not the rule down there? 

Judge Medler. No; I don’t think that you- 

Mr. Nori (interposing). There must be something wrong or this delegation would 
not be here. 

Mr. Wilson. In my experience, I have never found a court that did not do its 
duty. The courts always do their duty. I know among the judges sitting on the bench 
they have always tried to do their duty. The juries may not. I have had case 
after case where the juries did not do their duty. The court has no control over 
the jury. 

Judge Medler. Can the Government remedy that? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; the Federal jury is drawn from all over the State. We could 
chnllenge jurors from th?t district. 

Mr. Abbott. We would have authority to send farmers, teachers, and officers on 
the land of the Indians to help them. To-day these Indians, under bad advice, can 
defy the farmer sent to help them; can defy the irrigation engineer who goes there to 
assist them gratuitously in the construction of irrigation ditches. They can defy 
us and prevent us from building schoolhouses on their land that we pay for and are 
willing to pay for. 

Judge Medler. I know when I was in the United States attorney’s office one com¬ 
munity would not give you a site; you had to go and condemn one. They did not 
want schools. 

Mr. Abbott. That is very true, and that is the very reason why there should be 
the utmost effort made to bring some power strong enough to compel them to do the 
thing they ought to do. 

Judge Medler. The way to make them assume obligations is to make them bear 
the burden instead of letting them set themselves together as a community and let 
the Government exempt them from taxation. 

Mr. Abbott. Under the very plan we are advocating that is exactly what that 
would lead to. We are doing that now in the case of what you call tribal Indians. 


68 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


When the Indian becomes competent to look after his own affairs, he is given his pat¬ 
ent and that land becomes taxable. 

Judge Medler. In the course of time he becomes competent, at the expiration of 
the trust period. 

Mr. Abbott. No; that is the maximum limit. 

Judge Medler. These people have their patents? 

Mr. Abbott. They have had them released, but they need protection. 

Mr. Andrew G. Pollock. I believe that the Indians were willing to lease or dis¬ 
pose of surplus land. I believe that the title could be much more quickly cleared 
up and much more satisfactorily handled under this trusteeship of the United States 
than it can be handled under the State law. Now, if the land is taxed and sold, of 
course that is going to hurt the Indians anyway. It is going to affect all their lands 
the same. It would not only be that, but in the process of acquiring title under tax 
sale it will take as long, and much longer, a period under which money or bonds 
could be raised than the period through which'the land would come into private 
ownership through the administration of the trust by the Federal Government. It 
seems to me that it would be quite an advantage to the State of New Mexico to have 
all the lands, etc., under the Federal trust. 

Mr. Abbott. Father Weber, we would like to hear your views on this matter. 

Father Weber. They are asking for the taxes; they are not spending any money 
on them. Still, they want to pay the taxes on their lands. I think if the land 
remains the way it is now the result will be they will lose their lands. They will be 
sold for taxes, and the Indians will go to the dogs. I think the authority you just 
mentioned is absolutely necessary for their civilization and their education and the 
development of their lands, and the distribution of them is wrong. This is the only 
solution, in my mind. 

Mr. Abbott. Judge, the point has been made by Father Ketcham, Father Weber, 
and others here—it seems to me a very good one—that the action which the depart¬ 
ment is proposing would seem to be directly in the interests of the State of New 
Mexico, and it does seem to me that your representatives in Congress and the citi¬ 
zens of your State would be the first ones, out of selfish interests, to advocate this 
action. Now, the schools of these people are costing you nothing. The irrigation 
projects are costing you nothing. The roads are costing you nothing, and the gen¬ 
eral administration of the affairs of these people is costing you nothing, and permit 
me to say I think the record will show that we are expending very much more for 
the education of these people and their civilization than would be represented by 
the amount that you would receive under the regular taxes and levies that are made 
on the property of the citizens of the State. Is not that true? 

Judge Medler. No; I do not agree with you. In the first place, the Indian schools 
at Santa Fe, N. Mex., have a hard time to keep up their levies. 

Mr. Abbott. On the contrary, we have difficulty in keeping them from being 
overcrowded. 

Judge Medler. A year or two ago I know they had some trouble, because I think 
the superintendent went on the Navajo Reservation and had a hard time to get the 
people to let the children in. There was a time when they had children in the Indian 
school who did not have a quarter or an eighth of Indian blood. 

Mr. Abbott. That is true, and I will tell you why it is not true any more, because 
men like Mr. Nori and some other men have been educated, and the example they 
have set has helped the situation, so that others want education. 

Judge Medler. I do not agree. They have, been educating Indians in Albu¬ 
querque school since 1882. I remember when it was built. They have been edu¬ 
cating Indians ever since 1880 at Indian schools in Albuquerque. That would not 
be the reason. So far as the irrigation proposition is concerned, I understand you 
have Mr. Robinson down there. You are building irrigation ditches for those pueblos 
and things of this kind. You might do it in conjunction with the Reclamation Serv¬ 
ice, but as individuals the State of New Mexico would not be called upon to do it, 
because evidently all water in the Rio Grande is under the jurisdiction of the 
United States and appropriated for the Elephant Butte Dam, and no owner of land 
on the Rio Grande has any right to take appropriations out of that river but 
the Reclamation Service, so the State would not be called upon to make the irriga¬ 
tion ditches. If you are doing it, you are doing it on sufferance of the Reclamation 
Service. 

The tax that would be put on the town of San Dia would maintain schools three or 
four months, if properly taxed, because that is practically the best half of lands on 
the San Doval River. 

Pablo Abeita. You are mistaken, Mr. Medler. 

Father Weber. If that land is so valuable to pay the taxes on, how would the taxes 
be paid? The Indians have not enough to pay the taxes. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 69 

Judge Medler. If they were compelled to pay taxes, they would rent out or cul¬ 
tivate enough to pay taxes. 

Father Weber. That will be done after they have been educated, after the lands 
have been deeded to the Government, but that time has not arrived yet. 

Judge Medler. I do not think the United States is going into the business of 
quarreling-—— 

Mr. Abbott. I do not have any quarrel with you on the general principle that 
property ought to contribute its share, but I would like to ask you how long’you think 
the most of these Pueblos would have land to tax if all restrictions were removed and 
this land were taxed under the State law and subject to sale in case of delinquency. 

Judge Medler. I think they would have it as long as they saw fit to hold it, unless 
they saw fit to take the proceeds and go off into other communities or live in hotels, 
which they would not be likely to do. These are their homes, and have been for 
centuries. 

Mr. Wilson. The commissioner means it would be sold for taxes. 

Judge Medler. They would not let it be sold for taxes. 

Mr. Wilson. They could not get money. 

Judge Medler. They would cultivate the land. 

Mr. Abbott. I would like to show you a list of delinquent taxes from a tribe in 
Oklahoma, where the same grand idea was conceived that it was safe to remove the 
restrictions from Indians and permit their lands to be taxed under State law. There 
were 5,000 pieces of land listed for sale because their taxes were delinquent in one 
little tribe of the five tribes in Oklahoma. Now, I believe that the people in Okla¬ 
homa, where these results occurred, are really more capable than the majority of the 
Pueblos in New Mexico, as I have observed them. That is the difficulty of this 
situation, judge. We look merely at the question of taxation. Now, leaving that 
question alone, it is right that property should be taxed to maintain government, but 
when you come to think of taking off all the restrictions and having no authority to 
see that the property of these weak individuals is protected; that they have no schools 
guaranteed to them; and that they have no regular officials to see that they are looked 
after and obey the law, it makes it entirely out of the question, and it does seem to 
me that the people of New Mexico ought to be willing to join with the Government 
in a proposition that would take these helpless people over and manage their property 
and protect them, as it is doing in the case of other Indian people who are in a similar 
condition. 

Judge Medler. Well, I do not think you will find they are willing to do it. I was 
not aware when I came up here that the Legislature had passed the resolution. It 
shows the people of New Mexico are not willing to do anything of the kind you are 
considering. 

Mr. Abbott. But it is under a mistaken notion of what the Government is trying to 
do, and its purpose. 

Judge Medler. I have lived under the Territorial government for years. We were 
trying for years to get statehood so the United States would leave us alone. We have 
got it; now leave us alone; let us manage our own business. 

Mr. Abbott. But here are these Indian citizens of your State coming up here asking 
us to continue to manage it. 

Judge Medler. They come with as much reason as if I asked the Secretary of the 
Treasury to take me under his protecting wing. 

Mr. Nori. You do not consider yourself in the same class as these Indians as to 
power to protect yourself? 

Judge Medler." They were in position to protect themselves until the United States 
took them. 

Mr. Abbott. Are not difficulties surrounding them greater to-day than ever? Is 
there not hunger for land greater than ever before? 

Judge Medler. No. 

Mr. Nori. If we had factories- 

Judge Medler. Don’t you send boys to the beet fields? 

Mr. Nori. But that is not New Mexico. 

Judge Medler. We want to build up the State so your boys will have employment. 

Mr. Nori. Would not the State of New Mexico show prejudice? 

Judge Medler. Not a bit; it never has shown any prejudice. 

Mr. Abbott. I believe it is generally recognized that every State is interested from 
selfish motives in educating the youth of all classes of its citizenship, in order to make 
them not only self-supporting citizens but citizens who can produce something and 
add something to the wealth of the State. Now, in the case of people like these In¬ 
dians, how are you going to make them citizens of the kind I have mentioned without 
surrounding them with the protection that is necessary to civilize and educate them 
to the necessary point? 


70 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Judge Medler. How do you ever expect them to take their place as citizens and 
exercise the franchise and things like that unless you endow them with the attributes 
of citizenship? 

Mr. Abbott. And that is what we propose to do. 

Judge Medler. And yet you take their lands and protect them for 25 years. 

Mr. Abbott. If we don’t, the State will take the lands for taxes. 

Father Weber. And then you will have vagabonds. 

Judge Medler. The native Spanish-Americans don’t seem to be vagabonds. They 
have lived under the same circumstances as the Pueblo Indians, except they did not 
segregate themselves and try to have a tribal form of government. 

Mr. Abbott. The matter is working out in my own State. We have had several 
large reservations where the lands have been allotted in severalty to Indians under 
trust patents the same as would be the case if we took the lands of these Indians. 
To-day we are issuing patents in fee to those Indians because of the encouragement 
they have received from farmers who have authority to go and help them on their 
allotments. Many of them have become self-supporting. They are living in good 
houses. They are prepared to send their children to school. They no longer need 
protection and we are getting to the point where in a few years there will be no lands 
there that will not be taxed. 

Judge Medler. But these people here have never lived in half as good houses as the 
majority of people in New Mexico. Has there been a time when there has been super¬ 
vision that they have cultivated their fields, had horses and herds? 

Mr. Wilson. One winter San Ildefonso was given Government assistance. Their 
head gates were washed out and the Indians would have starved without aid. 

Mr. Nori. You mean to say that the State of New Mexico would not have put out 
her hand to help them. That is the point. 

Father Ketcham. There is a difference in a race of people having many generations 
of education and a race having one generation. I believe the people of New Mexico 
would be in favor of this plan if they understood it. Some do understand and are in 
favor of it. But people who want to see justice done to both whites and Indians cer¬ 
tainly ought not to object to a plan whereby a strong power takes hold and handles the 
matter for a few years in order to put these people o 1 their feet. The Federal Govern¬ 
ment can see that these lands are developed. The Federal Governme t or Indian 
Office, of course, is not here to protect the interests of the State of New Mexico or any 
other State. It is supposed to be on the side of the Indians. No fault should be found 
if it is ot the side of the Indians. Otherwise there would not be an Indian Depart¬ 
ment. The Government is strong e ;ough to stand between the Indian and those who 
are avaricious and it has patience with them as a people who have not had a thousand 
years of civilization. We should have patience with the Indians until the Govern¬ 
ment can do something for them. 

No State has done much for the Indians. No State can protect the Indian sub¬ 
ject against the progressive white citizen. There is the difficulty; but the Federal 
Government is able to protect the Indian, and it seems to me, for the honor of the 
State of New Mexico, that something of this kind ought to be done, because these 
things become of public note after a while. To-day the newspapers are full of what 
has happened in Oklahoma. Its name would be better if the State had handled 
the Indian matter better. New Mexico does not need to incur anything of this 
kind, because the people at large suspect that there is a desire to acquire Indian 
lands in that State as is the case all over the United States. While I believe these 
lands should bring in something to the State, the Federal Government is the power 
that can make them produce quicker than any other power. 

Mr. Abbott. Regardless of the question of whether the State or the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment is the proper one to take care of the Indians, I think we ought all to agree 
that something ought to be done to clear up the situation so that responsibility is 
definitely fixed somewhere, and you will all agree it is not now. 

Judge Medler. There is no responsibility on the part of the Government, because 
it has no right to take any authority. It never was authorized to take any. 

Mr. Abbott. Then, why not take some definite steps to take the Government 
schools and the Government representatives out of the Territory—out of the State? 

Judge Medler. I think they ought to be taken out, so far as these Pueblo Indians 
are concerned. 

Mr. Abbott. In the first place there is an unsettled legal question. 

Judge Medler. In the decision of the Supreme Court, the Congress has no more 
authority to take charge of jurisdiction over these people than I have. 

Mr. Abbott. That is a case where all do not agree with you. 

Judge Medler. I will cite you the reference there. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


71 


Mr. Abbott. There is no use of discussing that point. The Supreme Court has 
that general question before it now, and I hope the action of Congress and the deci¬ 
sion of the court will settle that responsibility. 

I do not think you can find any place where the Supreme Court has definitely 
decided that the Pueblo Indians are citizens, except the Pope decision. 

Mr. Wilson. There is the case of United States v. Richards. That was purely 
as regards their status to hold lands. 

Mr. Abbott. There was no question of their personal status. 

Judge Medler (reads): United States v. Joseph- 

Mr. Abbott. If that had been clearly decided and there was no question about it, 
it goes without saying that Congress would never have appropriated money for the 
benefit of these people, and the State itself has recognized certain authority on the 
part of the United States. But Congress has never taken the step to show these people 
are citizens. 

Judge Medler. But because you have put provisions in appropriation bills allow¬ 
ing them to appropriate for an attorney you say Congress shows them to be Indians 
under your jurisdiction. 

Father Ketcham. They are citizens as they were under government of Mexico. 
That class of citizenship is continued under our Government, and the only question is 
that of the status of their citizenship under New Mexico. 

Mr. Wilson. And that is the theory under which the department has proceeded, 
believing that they had a qualified relationship with the Mexican Government 
whereby they were in certain particulars wards of the Mexican Government as shown 
by the laws of Mexico, which is, of course, the significant proposition of that question. 
Mr. Justice.Field, in case of United States v. Pio Pico, in a case involving Indian lands 
in California of the Pueblo Flores, stated, in the opinion rendered to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, that the Pueblo Indians were subject to a qualified guard¬ 
ianship on the part of the Mexican Government, and he continued to hold, however, 
that they could hold lands and that their sales of lands were perfectly good, and that 
was the question involved in the case. 

Mr. Abbott. If Congress would say finally that the Indian Office had no duty to 
perform toward the Pueblo Indians, and thereby take hands off that situation, then it 
seems to me there would be very much more ground for the argument which has been 
offered here. 

Judge Medler. I assume you are going to arrange a meeting of these Indians 
to-morrow morning. 

Mr. Abbott. I am going to try to. The Senate committee has prolonged its hearings 
far beyond what it intended to and engagements of members may be such that they 
will feel it is impossible to hear these people. However, I believe they will either hear 
this delegation or appoint a special committee to do it. I am going to ask them very 
earnestly to do that, because I do not know any situation under the control of this 
office which is more important to have settled one way or the other than this one. 

Judge Medler. I think now is the time to settle it. 

Mr. Abbott. I think it is. 

Father Ketcham. Are the Indians of southern California citizens? Yet the Gov¬ 
ernment exercises all kinds of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Abbott. Yes; many are allotted under the fourth section of the general allot¬ 
ment act, and their lands are held in trust. 

Mr. Wilson. The Zunis are in exactly the same position. They are Pueblo In¬ 
dians and had their grant the same as other Pueblos, but their papers were lost, and 
for that reason the Congress never confirmed to them a reservation. They are wards 
of the Government. The Mission Indians of California are citizens as much as these 
Indians are. I need not state the method of holding land and any attitude of the 
Government. 

Father Ketcham. The blot which it has been on the State of California, California 
has been trying to erase ever since it came to its senses. 

Mr. Abbott. The State of California is about the most insistent of any State of the 
country that has Indians that ample funds shall be appropriated for the use of the 
Department of the Interior and the Indian Office for the protection of those Indians. 

Father Ketcham. I believe that the people of New Mexico would do a good thing 
for the State to avoid such a condition as may come. Future disgrace would attach 
to it, there is no doubt. 

Mr. Abbott. Is it not true, Judge, that these Pueblo Indians never exercised the 
right of franchise in Mexico? 

Mr. Wilson. There was a law prohibiting them from voting passed in 1854 and they 
have never voted since. The law did not say anything about taxes. 

Judge Medler. That is the understanding. If the Indians are not taxed, they sire 
not allowed to vote. 


72 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Mr. Wilson. They later tried to tax them. 

Judge Medler. The Federal Government had a right to exempt from taxation as 
long as it was a Territory, but not a right to do it now it is a State any more than to 
exempt my property. 

Mr. Nori. It seems such a radical change to take a position like this, especially if 
this is the sentiment of the State of New Mexico as regards Indians. I should think 
they ought to be willing to compromise and either they take the responsibility or let 
the Federal Government take it. 

Mr. Pollock. Does not the constitution provide exemption from taxation? 

Judge Medler. No. 

Father Ketcham. Here you have a tribe of Indians who some way or other have 
been very independent under Spain and Mexico and this country and who have kept 
up their own government and have shown very sterling qualities. As it has been 
shown in the past, when the Government went down there and found it could not 
coerce them as it could other Indians—they always resented that kind of interference; 
but now they are in a dilemma, and they deliberately chose—these people who have 
so jealously guarded their rights—deliberately chose to place their titles in the Federal 
Government. There is certainly some strong reason. They are not influenced much 
by sentiment, and have always known how to take care of themselves. 

Judge Medler. The same thing might apply if I came over from Germany and was 
not satisfied, might want Germany to take my property in charge. 

Father Ketcham. There is no comparison between Germany- 

Judge Medler. I don’t think these people have any more right to advantages from 
the sovereignty of the United States than I have. 

Father Ketcham. They are only asking the United States to administer for a little 
while on their property. 

Judge Medler. They want to absolve themselves from their rights and duties as 
citizens of the State of New Mexico. 

Mr. Abbott. They would not absolve themselves as citizens. In fact, in most 
States lands are held in trust by the United States and still they vote. I confess I was 
surprised when I learned that these Pueblos were now coming to ask the department to 
take over their land in trust. When I made the recommendation in my report that 
this was the thing that should be done in order to give us an opportunity to do what 
we ought to if we have the jurisdiction over these people, I had no idea that they would 
do it. 

Mr. Wilson. In a meeting held last July, which had representatives from every 
pueblo in New Mexico except Zuni, all except three agreed. There was a little dis¬ 
sension in two others. Not counting in the two that had dissented, those we have here 
are practically unanimous. There is very little dissension, if any. 

Father Ketcham. I am quite sure the Federal Government is not seeking such 
things, but apparently it would be an easy way out of the proposition for both sides. 

I do not know whether to advocate it strongly or not. This is a most extraordinary 
thing for these people to do—when they have title in fee to turn it over to some other 
person, some other holder. 

Mr. Nori. I don’t think they would resort to anything like that if there was justice 
in the dealings they had received. 

Mr. Abbott. I have never been inclined to blame the citizens of New Mexico for 
the conditions of the Pueblo Indians, for their failure to protect the interests of those 
Indians, more than the citizens of other States. That is not the point. The main 
difficulty down there is the lack of any final accurate division of authority. 

Judge Medler. Well, they are responsible for that to a certain extent themselves, 
because they resent any interference. 

Mr. Abbott. I know that is true. Just as a child resents taking medicine for croup, 
who does not want to take medicine at all. These people are not capable of protecting 
themselves. I do not know a more helpless lot of people anywhere in this country. 
I know I am speaking here to some of the strongest men of the Pueblos, but I believe 
with Father Ketcham, who has visited nearly all the Indians in the country, that 
there is no people as a class who need protection any more to-day than the Pueblo 
Indians. It is only the exceptional man, like Mr. Nori here, who gets out and 
goes away and gets established on his own feet. Take men like the most of these men 
sitting here; they are not in position, even if their lands were taxed, to figure out the 
amount of their tax receipts and know whether they are being treated justly or not. 
They do not know how to get their case before the proper State authority if their 
property rights are being trespassed upon. It is a serious question, when you come 
to look at it from the standpoint of the human individual. 

Judge Medler.. I think if you lived in that country, and knew something of the 
condition, you might change your point of view. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


73 


Mr. Abbott. I have lived in the West all my life. 

Judge Medler. Then you had acquaintance with these Pueblos? 

Mr. Abbott. No; only visiting them. I have visited in their homes. 

Father Ketcham. No one will deny that there were disagreeable features. 

Judge Medler. I know something about it from that view. 

Mr. Abbott. I had some experience down there with them myself. There are some 
men here now, I think, who got an idea when I was down there advising them that I 
was about the worst enemy they had in the world, and they said some very bad things 
about me personally, but I am not blaming them for that. They simply did not 
understand the situation. They were following the advice of mischief-makers and 
did not know it. But the very fact that they are stubborn and set in their views, 
and that they do want to do things they ought not to do at times, is the very strongest 
reason why we should take possession of their affairs and make them do the things 
that are in their interest. We make white citizens do things that are in their interest. 
We compel the children of our own citizens to attend school, and we see to it that the 
truant officers have authority to go and compel attendance. Among the Pueblos 
we have not any such authority. 

Judge Medler. I know a case where they would not let the United States mail 
carrier go through the pueblo while they were holding their dances. 

Mr. Abbott. Well, Judge, we evidently can not get our views together on this,, 
but I am very glad you have come down and presented your views in the record. 

Judge Medler. If you will notify us of the meeting, if you are going to have a 
meeting, I think Mr. Catron would like to be present. The Senator understood this 
morning that he would be advised when it was held. 

Mr. Abbott. This is really the only meeting we have had with these people. We 
have presented their case in writing. You can assure Senator Catron that when the 
time for the meeting is fixed I will notify his office. 

Hearing of Pueblo Indians in Office of Acting Commissioner Abbott, Urging 
that Title to Their Lands be Placed in Trust in the United States Gov¬ 
ernment for 25 Years. 


February 12, 1913. 

Ulysses G. Paisano, of Laguna. Well, about two years ago, and before that, we 
were in New Mexico, which was a Territory at that time, and we were, under the 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, well protected. The year before that the Indians 
did not seem to realize, but now they do realize the need, and they are beginning to 
send their children to school. And now New Mexico becomes a State. The Indians 
are in a state of ignorance; they don’t know anything, practically, and the majority 
of them can not read, they can not write, and they fear that disgrace will come upon 
them; that taxation will exist, and that drunkenness and dishonesty and unfair 
dealing will exist. For instance, if the Indians are left loose in the State of New 
Mexico now, we fear our boys will begin engaging in drinking and taking part with 
the white people, Mexicans, and dishonest people will incorporate with them and 
work against the ignorant people that can not read and write; they are helpless. It 
means that after all the lands have been taken away and the property can not be pro¬ 
tected, the Indians will be all scattered in the Southwest everywhere without knowing 
anything; and what kind of citizens will they be, supposing it is that way? We 
realize that it would be the best thing for us to have all our land and property deeded 
to the United States Government, and be under the protection of the Government, 
and we want to have somebody stand behind us to protect us. 

There are a number of acres of land to be cultivated, but the Indians are afraid 
to lease, because they do not know the value; they are just afraid. But there in 
Laguna, the place I am representing, we have hardly any water at all in the dry 
seasons, and if that trust deed should be accepted by the United States Government, 
that would be a chance of 25 years maybe, for our Indians and lands, etc. In many 
places there in our districts there are coal and oil to be discovered in the future. 
When they are discovered by white people and Mexicans and even our own people, 
it will take no time before they come in and take away our land from us, and cooper¬ 
ate and form a company. We are afraid that all of them will be grafters. 

You all know that people like this will be very easily deceived. For example, 
many times things have happened like this: An old Indian is given liquor, and he 
has some land or property to be taken away from him. There may be two or three or 
more Mexicans or dishonest folks against him, and they might make him sign up 
promissory notes and things like that without knowing anything, and although he 
may testify against them all by himself, what can he do against the four or five or 
six witnesses against him? And things like that will happen, because they don’t 


74 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


know anything at all. Well, in the former days, many years ago, the Mexicans came 
in and leased in the first place lands there in what we call Mesilla, and gradually they 
settled down, and for many years we tried to take the Mexicans out of this land, but 
could not until by the help of the Government we did it. That shows us how easily 
they can come in and up to the present time we have some land cases to be brought 
up that are in the hands of Mr. Wilson. It is above Cabezon that they prevented us 
cutting our timber and the wood to be hauled from that mountain, the place where 
we have a grant; they even fenced it up one time on the main road, a public road. 
At that same place they also took the coal from the foot of the mountain, hauled it 
down, and we could not prevent them until we had a trial or hearing at Laguna before 
Mr. Wilson and a lawyer for the Mexicans. They quit for a while taking those coals, 
but they are just as anxious, and when we were turned loose they just came upon us 
most any time. If we are given a chance for 25 years we believe strongly that at that 
time all of our children will be educated. This will be one generation, you see, and 
now the Indians are very willing to send their children to the day schools and boarding 
schools at Albuquerque and Santa Fe. 

Mr. Abbott. You are just speaking for Laguna? 

Ulysses Paisano. No, for Isleta too; and for New Mexico. 

Mr. Abbott. Are there not public schools there in which your children are en¬ 
rolled, supported by the State of New Mexico? 

Ulysses Paisano. Oh, no; Government day schools, I mean. 

Mr. Abbott. Are any of them in the public schools of the State? 

Ulysses Paisano. No. 

Mr. Abbott. You mean practically all of the people in your pueblos are now willing 
to send their children to school? 

Ulysses Paisano. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Abbott. That is not true at Santa Domingo, is it? 

Ulysses Paisano. That is too far away for me, the other folks will say about that. 
But I see that there is an improvement, they are so willing to send their children to 
school. Suppose we are put under the protection of the Government for 25 years, 
the Indians will be well qualified and will be more educated than we are, some of 
them. 

It seems that we are going to be turned to happiness from misery; if we are under 
the protection of the Government we will be happier, but if we are not under the 
Government’s protection, we will be unhappy all our lives, probably. Well, that is 
about all I want to say. If you want to ask me questions I might answer you. 

Mr. Abbott. I may have some after a while. I will not ask anything more now.. 

Pablo Abeita, of Isleta (also representing Santa Ana and San Dia). I will state in 
just as few words as I can what our mission to Washington is. I will start by saying 
we are seeking protection. Protection is what we want from the Government. We 
find that the white people in New Mexico are not working for our protection, but sim¬ 
ply working for their own benefit; that is, to take as much as they can of what land we 
have left. We know that if the Government takes charge of us Indians we will live 
just as peaceful lives as we did long before the white people came into this country, 
but we are satisfied that if the State of New Mexico takes charge of us Indians, we 
will live a life of misery. We can not be contented any more unless the Govern¬ 
ment gives us protection. We are not, at present, able to take care of ourselves; we 
have to have somebody who will take care of us, our lands, our children, all our inter¬ 
ests. The State, I am afraid, will not give us that protection. If we have no land, we 
might as well not be alive, since we depend on the land for our subsistence. We do 
not ask the Government to give us money. We simply ask that the Government 
protect us in all our dealings, especially on land matters. There is also the matter of 
taxation. Taxation does not bother us so much as our lands. We may be able to find 
in some way an opportunity to pay our taxes, but if we are not protected in our lands, 
we will lose them, the same as we would lose them on the taxation question. The 
white people who come in there know very well that the Indian is weak in all his 
dealings. They will come with a roll of money, knowing the Indians like money, and 
tell them a fine story or give them some liquor, and before long they have over one- 
half of our land, and when our land is gone our happiness is gone. We hope if the 
Government will take our lands in trust that at the end of 25 years the present gener¬ 
ation will be, and I am satisfied by that time it will be, educated enough to come into 
eon tact with the white people. We expect, we hope that when they are educated, 
at the end of 25 years, they will be able to protect themselves, which at present, I 
am satisfied we are not able to do. I am satisfied that the aim of the Government 
has always been for the good of the people, especially the Indians. We have had 
schools, good schools, and of late have had a little education. At present in my 
Pueblo there may be something like 10 per cent who read and write English, but 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


75 


they are not yet able or intelligent enough, educated enough, to deal with the Ameri¬ 
cans. If the Government should take charge of the Indians, as we hope it will, the 
Medical Corps, which has been doing a whole lot for the Indians, we expect will do 
the same as it has done up to now. Of these things we expect and hope that the 
Government will continue, if these deeds are accepted in trust. On the other hand, 
if the Federal Government takes its hands entirely away from the Indians, the State 
will do all it can to get the best of the Indians. They would not care, I am satisfied, 
what became of the Indians so long as they get the land they are after. For that 
reason we come here to pray and plead just as hard as we can. It is in the hands of 
the Government or in the hands of Congress whether you want the Indians to live a 
happy life or a life of misery. We hope that the white people will remember that 
they are living in a country once owned entirely by us Indians. They ought to 
understand and know that this country, when it was given to us by the Great Spirit, 
we understood that we Indians were the sole owners and heirs to it. We lived a happy 
life then; did not know what misery was. 

Victoriano Sisneros (representing the Santa Clara Pueblo). I will just say a few 
words. I will state in brief that the Pueblo Indians want to turn our land and title 
and our properties to the hands of the Government to take care of and protect our 
rights, because at the present time we are not able to take care of our property ourselves. 
I know in my pueblo there are a good many old, and some young men, who don’t under¬ 
stand the way of civilization, and the way of life, as white people. And, therefore, 
we want our land held in trust and handled by the Government to take care of for the 
Indians for a period of 25 years. I think inside of 25 years our children will be more 
educated and be able to take care of themselves, and also us personally, be able to take 
care of ourselves. Also, I will say that I will not ask the great father here in Washing¬ 
ton for any moneys or anybody to protect our rights in our properties. 

Now I will close, and I hope you will hear us and look after our things. That is 
about all. 

Antonio Romero, Taos. I will say just a few words in regard to the trust patent 
deeds we are here for. At this time we are unable to take care of ourselves, of our 
property, of our rights, and we do not realize the value of our property. We want to 
turn over this property and land in deeds to the Government, so the Government will 
see if we get the value of our property in any way. 

I want to make a few statements in regard to the liquor-traffic service in which I 
have been employed. We went to work last spring on the liquor business, as the State 
had never looked out for our interests. I and another boy have worked out four good 
cases there, and the statute in the State of New Mexico prohibits the selling of liquor 
to any Indian plainly; anybody could see it who is able to read; but we were unable 
to get the cases even before the grand jury to hear the case. 

Mr. Abbott. Why? 

Antonio Romero. Just because they don’t want to take them. 

Mr. Abbott. Just how did you make the effort? 

Mr. Wilson. They have to be subpoenaed, and the foreman of the grand jury would 
not authorize the issuance of subpoenas, and without them they could not get before 
the grand jury. 

Antonio Romero. We tried to get the grand jury to subpoena our witnesses on our 
suit, to indict the bootleggers and saloon keepers, and the foreman of the grand jury 
would not take it up to subpoena the witnesses. There is a section of the statute of 
New Mexico we would like to have straightened out if the Government should take 
our trust deeds, exempting Indians from taxation, to have their country known as 
Indian country; but by Judge Pope’s decision in that case it knocks out that part of 
the section. He says it is unconstitutional, that under that same decision the Taos 
County grand jury would not hear that case—the liquor traffic case. Of course, then, 
everything was over, and we were powerless, as we are to-day. Only, the customary 
Indian governor and war chief are looking after that now, helping us to suppress the 
traffic 

And our water cases that Mr. Pollock has here! I have heard different conversa¬ 
tions of the importance of that. I heard one conversation where the Taos Land Co. 
engineer and three other men who had said if the Government of the United States was 
not behind us they would have taken us down the river and drowned us in the Gulf of 
Mexico; I heard that conversation; I was present, but I pretended I could not under¬ 
stand anything that was said. I want to get this land turned over to the Government, 
for the Government to protect us for the term of 25 years, to give us time to turn around 
and get ready to meet it when it comes back to us in 25 years. We want to enjoy what 
we have been enjoying under the Government—the school, education, and elevating 
work, protecting us, and all these things. 


76 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Santiago Quintana, of Cochiti. In regard to the matter we have here before our 
Government, will say in a few words what I think. I believe that we, the Indians, 
are not capable of defending ourselves as our white brothers are. We are sent here 
as representatives of those people in New Mexico, the Indian race. We know that 
our territory has become extinct. The Indians, I fear, can not very well care for 
themselves and their property, because they are most all ignorant; they do not under¬ 
stand the transacting of business of any kind; they are entirely ignorant of making 
any kind of transaction. So far as we have been under our Government we have 
lived peaceably. Our Government has done a great deal of good in educating our 
children, and if we are submitted to the State I believe we will not have as good 
chances as we have now in educating our children. I say this because the Mexicans 
have schools in our village which only takes two months. That is all the schooling 
the Mexican children get in cur place, and if it is going to be that way I believe our 
children would not be educated; but if the Government will help us, as it has done 
before, we expect our children will be well educated and fitted for citizenship. At 
present they are not able to come in contact with our white brothers. 

What I fear is this: If we are subjected to the statehood, the liquor business will 
overpower us. I know this myself from the fact that last year, on the 25th of Decern* 
ber, I, as governor, fought this liquor business in my own village, and I have given 
order and have forbidden my people there not to allow liquor to be brought into our 
town; but it seems that it is impossible to do this. I am sure, if we are submitted 
to citizenship, we will have saloons in our town, which will mean ruin to our race. 
Therefore I come here, representing my people, to ask our great Government to- 
protect us from the white race and Mexicans taking advantage of us. Therefore we 
pray to our Government that it will take these deeds in trust for 25 years. I am 
sure that by that time our children will be well educated and fitted for citizenship, 
to care for themselves, and transact their own business. At present we are not able 
to do any business with the white race, but we know that hereafter the Indians will 
realize the necessity of educating the children, now we have come in contact with 
our brothers who are well educated. I will try to insist upon my race having their 
children in schools, so that they can be educated and fitted to do business for them¬ 
selves hereafter. 

Jamie Leeds, of Laguna. Well, Mr. Chairman, we come here not simply because 
we are afraid of paying taxes, but we come here to see the Secretary of the Interior 
and say that we would like to deed the land to him. For this reason: We are not 
educated enough to take care of our lands and our properties and things like that, and 
we are not educated enough to be compared with the Mexicans and white people. 
And if our deeds are not carried out and is not accepted, of course, as our brother Pablo 
says, we will be lost forever. If the Government gives us a chance for 25 years, I am 
sure that the children within 25 years will be able to take care of their own homes and 
properties for themselves and be able enough to pay taxes and know what taxation is. 

I don’t know much about along the river beds how the land is, but I am suffering 
on my part with my own people. We have very poor land; we have no water—hardly 
any water. The only water we have is during March, May, and June; the first of June 
the water in the sink is just drying up. And we cultivate it as much as we can, but 
we never get back the whole product of what we put in. Sometimes we get about 
one-third. You will see in this that our land is not worth anything, and we are not 
able to pay taxes. If our lands were rich enough and had enough profits, of course, we 
will be able to pay taxes. 

And so this is the reason we come here to see the Secretary of the Interior to accept 
our lands in trust, in order to protect us from paying taxes and to have more schooling. 
We are anxious to put our children in schools, in order to get the privileges of white 
men and to enjoy with him within 25 years. It seems this way to me: You can just 
lead an Indian from his land, because he doesn’t know how to deal his rights and his 
properties, as though you may lead into temptation a blind man. You can catch hold 
of a blind man and lead him to danger, where he can fall in. That is the way with us; 
our situation stands just like it; because we are not educated enough to see what is 
right and what is wrong. If a State takes hold of us, of course, that would be the last 
of us. There will be no more Indians. The land would be all taken away from them. 
They will be all scattered like tramps; but I pray that the Government should accept 
this our plea, our petition, to hold the land for us for 25 years, and protect us from 
liquor and give us justice, because we lose our land that way. If we have no more 
protection, of course, soon the Indians will be all exterminated, because they will have 
no more protection from the Government; because there will be no more lawyers for 
them to work with them, to deal with their lands. 

And about the leases, we don’t know just how to lease our lands, because we don’t 
know about the leasing and such things like that; and if the Government holds our 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 77 

land and have a man who can handle the lands in lease business, by that way we can 
get something out of it. 

And our hope is that the Government of the United States will take this land in 
trust—that is our hope and prayer to God and to the United States Government. 

Montoya, of Cochiti. I was thinking, it is the truth, these what is coming to be done. 
Of course, the Indians, I have a great pity for all my people who are not educated; 
that is, the older men above 30 years, who have no way of getting their education, and 
I am feeling sorry for them. I don’t feel sorry for myself so much as I do for my older 
people. Those people do not know nothing about the laws, nothing about the duties 
of the citizenship of the United States, who will be just like a blind man turned into 
the street. He might get out; he might not get out. And with the laws of the State 
of New Mexico, it is only for the men that are holding the lands. They are doing for 
their own people, not for us, because last year, or some time ago, it was happened that 
these officers of the State were not paying taxes, and it come up last year some time 

that the man of this M-was put into jail for $16,000. Those fellows, and there 

were several others that were holding the lands of the State that never paid taxes, and 
it come up and they had big trouble then; but don’t know whether it was settled or 
not. And I will say in regard to this, that the education we have got from the United 
States—the United States gave us—is a great help to us. 

Mr. Abbott. Where were you educated, Montoya? 

Montoya. Santa Fe School. And it seems we ought to have the assistance of the 
United States Government. 

Mr. Abbott. Montoya, when did you leave the Santa Fe School? 

Montoya. About 12 years ago.; about 11 years ago. 

Mr. Abbott. And you are now living on the Cochiti pueblo? 

Montoya. Yes; on the Cochiti pueblo. 

Mr. Abbott. Have you some land there of your own set apart by the- 

Montoya. W 7 ell, in the community. Of course it belongs to everybody, but we 
have a certain amount of land which we cultivate ourself, or for our use. 

Mr. Abbott. So you are living there and cultivating your tract of land the same 
as other people? 

Montoya. Yes, sir. And the education is a great help—I know myself. I have 
seen the Indians come out and work among Americans, mostly, of course, and these 
Indians will come out and work and don’t know what they are supposed to do, and I 
sometimes interpret for them, and where you have to interpret they just run them off. 
WTiy? Because they do not understand English. And so the children to-day—I can 
prove it—they are given greater advantages in education; they are taking up the 
English language from 5 years old up. They can all talk English, and my hopes are 
that in 25 years, if we have enough bread, in 25 years our children will be able to go 
to high schools and our grandsons will be able to go to college. 

Mr. Abbott. How many people are there, Montoya? 

Montoya. Big and small? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, altogether. 

Montoya. About 600 



78 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


A tabulated statement showing area and population of the various pueblos is here¬ 
with submitted, as follows: 


Pueblo. 


Patented 
Popula- to Pueblo 

tion.i by United 

States. 


Lost by 
sales, 
squatters, 
or other 
encroach¬ 
ments 
(esti¬ 
mated). 


Claimed 
outside of 
patented 
lands and 
now in¬ 
volved in 
lawsuits 
(esti¬ 
mated) . 


Indian pat¬ 
ented areas 
claimed by 
others ana 
involved in 
lawsuits 
(esti¬ 
mated). 


Acres. 


Acres. 


Acres. 


Acres. 


1. Acoma. 

2. Cochiti. 

3. Isleta. 

4. Jemez. 

5. Laguna. 

6. Nambe. 

7. Picuris. 

8. Pecos. 

9. Pojoaque. 

10. Sandia. 

11. Santa Ana. 

12. Santa Clara. 

13. Sanlldefonso. 

14. San Domingo. 

15. San Juan. 

16. San Felipe. 

17. Taos. 

18. Jesuque. 

19. Zia. 

20. Zuni (Executive-order reservation).... 

Total. 


520 

345 

1,085 

525 

1,583 

108 

106 


93 

212 

268 

150 

809 

289 

492 

521 

84 

123 

1,752 


95,792 
24,256 
172,074 
17,510 
118,840 
13,590 
17,461 
18,763 
13,520 
24,187 

17.360 
17,859 
17,293 
92,398 
17,544 
33,692 

17.361 
17,471 
17,515 


2,000 

10,000 

500 

10,000 

3,000 

1,000 


3,000 

1,000 

9,000 

3,000 

5,000 

5,000 


3,000 

200 


9,077 


764,486 


55,700 


10,000 


6,000 


2,000 

25,000 

2,000 


9,000 

2,000 

1,000 

160 


15,000 


25,000 


47,160 


1 Approximated from figures so far issued by Census Bureau, census of 1910. 

2 Moved to Jemez. 

3 Claimed by Gross-Kelly, Las Vegas. 

4 Practically all tillable lands under present ditches. 

The brief mentioned in the remarks of Senator Catron is as follows: 

Brief of Senator T. B. Catron as to the Pueblo Indians being Citizens. 

THE PUEBLO INDIANS IN NEW MEXICO. 

The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico belong to those Indians who were known as 
the Aztecs at the time of the conquest of Mexico by Spain. 

They have always lived in towns and cultivated the soil and have acquired by 
grant from Spain to them over 700,000 acres of the very best lands in the State of 
New Mexico. These grants were recognized by the Mexican Government after its 
independence and by the United States Government which, by an act of Congress, 
confirmed them and caused patents to be issued to them in fee simple, so that the 
Government has no right or title or control over said lands in any manner. 

The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico live in twenty distinct towns, separated from 
each other from a mile or so to nearly 250 miles. The Pueblo Indians occupied the 
same relation to the Spanish Government the other subjects of that Government 
occupied in Mexico. 

The Spanish Cortes on October 15, 1810, decreed: 

“That the Spanish dominions in the two hemispheres incontrovertibly should 
form one and the same Monarchy, one and the same nation, and one single family; 
that, therefore, the natives (naturales) who may be members of said dominion either 
European, or those beyond the seas, are equal in rights to those of this Peninsula, 
being under the control of the Cortes to deal with them opportunely and in every 
respect so as to promote the happiness of those beyond the seas. 

And the same Cortes, by decree dated February 9, 1811, also provided: 

“The Americans as well as Spaniards in India,*and the children of both, shall have 
equal rights with the European Spaniards to fill all classes of office and distinctions, 
either in the Cortes or any other place in the Monarchy, be it ecclesiastical, political, 
or military.” 

On the 24th day of February, 1821, the declaration of independence of Mexico was 
made at Iguala, known as the “Plan of Iguala.” The twelfth clause of that plan, 























































79 


-i 

PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


which will be found in the Ordenes y Decretos Mexicanos for 1821 and 1822, and cor¬ 
rectly translated, reads as follows: 

“All the inhabitants of New Spain, without any distinction between Europeans, 
Africans, or Indians, are citizens of this Monarchy, with the right to hold every office 
according to their merits and virtues.” 

This clause was ratified by the act of the Mexican Congress of the 5th of October, 
1821, the Government at that time which was formed being an empire under 
Yturbide, and will be found in the same volume at pages 3 and 4 therein. On the 29th 
day of December, 1836, seven constitutional provisions were adopted by the Mexican 
Republic which will be found in Gamboa leyes Constitucionales de Mexico, the first 
article of which says: 

“Article I. Mexicans are: Those born in the territory of the Republic of a father 
who was a Mexican by birth or by naturalization” (p. 358). 

The second subdivision of paragraph 3 thereof (pp. 360, 361) says: 

“The obligations of a Mexican are to contribute to the expenses of the Government 
in the amounts which may be established by the laws.” 

The fourth subdivision (p. 361) provides: 

“The Mexicans shall enjoy all other civil rights and be under all other obligations 
which may be provided by law.” 

The eighth clause (p. 362) also provides: 

“That it shall be the rights of all Mexican citizens * * *, first, to vote for all 
officers at direct popular elections; second, to be voted for for the same, provided that 
they possess the qualifications provided by law in each particular case.” 

The ninth provision provides: 

“That it shall be the special obligation of the Mexican citizen, first, to register 
himself at the place of his residence; second, to attend popular elections unless pre¬ 
vented by some physical or moral impediments.” 

This was the constitution which was in force at the time New Mexico was annexed 
to the United States, and defined the rights, duties, and obligations of the citizens 
of the Republic at that time. 

Article VIII of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico says: 

“Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which 
remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the pres¬ 
ent treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside or to remove at any time 
to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said terri¬ 
tories, or disposing thereof and .removing the proceeds wherever they please without 
their being subjected on this account to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever. 
Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and 
rights of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But 
they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the 
date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the 
said territories after the expiration of that year without having declared their inten¬ 
tion to retain the character of Mexicans shall be considered to have elected to become 
citizens of the United States.” 

This treaty brought these Pueblos, citizens of Mexico, into the United States as 
citizens, as none of them ever elected to retain their Mexican citizenship, and pro¬ 
tected them in the enjoyment of their property. 

Article IX of that treaty says: 

“The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall*not preserve the character of 
citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the pre¬ 
ceding article, 3 hall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and be 
admitted, at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States), 
to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the 
principles of the Constitution, and in the meantime shall be maintained and pro¬ 
tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and secured in the free 
exercise of their religion without restriction.” 

Thus placing them entirely upon an equal footing and standing with all the citizens 
of the United States. 

That these Pueblos regarded themselves as citizens of the Republic of Mexico, 
and not as belonging to Indian tribes, such as were known in Mexico as savages or 
barbarians, is established by the fact that in 1837 there was a revolution in New 
Mexico against the then constituted authorities, in which revolution these Pueblos, 
acting in their capacity as citizens, along with other Mexicans who were not of Indian 
blood, took an active part. Gov. Perez, then the governor of New Mexico, was 
killed, as well as his secretary of state, and the people who killed him and overthrew 
the Territorial government at the time designated a man by the name of Gongales, 
who was an Indian of the pueblo of Santa Clara, as the governor in his stead. Gon¬ 
gales took possession of the governor’s palace; also took command of the parties who 


80 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


had overthrown Perez and formed a kind of an army. The Pueblos and a great 
many of the people who were not Pueblos supported and sustained him in that office. 
The people in the lower part of the Territory organized and put Manuel Armijo, a 
Mexican, at their head, and a battle was fought in the northern part of Santa Fe 
County, not far from the pueblo of Santa Clara, in which the insurgents under Gon- 
gales were overthrown; Gongales was captured and shot; the revolution was put 
down and order restored and remained restored until after the American occupation, 
in 1846. In 1847, after Kearney had gone on to California to occupy that portion 
of the Mexican territory, and Col. Doniphan had gone south to occupy the State 
of Chihuahua, leaving Gen. Sterling Price with his regiment of Missourians in con¬ 
trol of Santa Fe, N. Mex., another revolution was gotten up by the Pueblos and 
other people who were not Pueblo Indians, for the purpose of overturning the Amer¬ 
ican authority and killing or driving out all the Americans and reclaiming New 
Mexico for Mexico. This revolution was mainly carried on by the Pueblos or Pueblo 
Indians. It was headed by a Mexican by the name of Archuleta, but most of his 
command or soldiers were of the Pueblos. This revolution took place in the north¬ 
ern part of New Mexico, practically over the same ground that Gongales’s revolution 
against Perez took place. 

Gen. Price very energetically marched his regiment toward the north and drove 
the insurgents back into the county of Taos. Finally they were driven on to the 
Pueblo lands and into the Indian pueblo of Taos, where they occupied the church 
:as a fortification. Quite a battle was fought there and a number of American troops 
were killed, among them Capt. Burgwin. After several days’ fighting the insurgents 
surrendered, but surrendered as Mexican citizens and not as Indians. Since that time 
there has been peace on the part of the Pueblos of Mexico. They have been law- 
abiding, obedient in every respect to the mandates of the public authority, and have 
in every respect acted as citizens. They are all civilized, many of them now speak¬ 
ing the English language, although all of them still speak the Spanish language, but 
they are all members of the Catholic Church, being Christianized more than 200 years 
before under the Spanish rule. They were almost always at war with the savage 
Indians, and were the principal support of the Spanish authorities and the Mexican 
authorities in New Mexico in maintaining the Governments of Spain and Mexico there. 
They never claimed themselves to be Indians in the sense in which we in the Eastern 
“States consider Indians; they were not nomadic; they were not savage; they were not 
barbarians. They voted at all elections prior to about the year 1850, both under the 
Mexican Government and under ours. They held, offices under both the Govern¬ 
ments. Since the organization of New Mexico several of them have held the title of 
justice of the peace, of constable, sheriff, and other local offices. They always acted 
as citizens until about 1852, when they were persuaded by a citizen, who wanted to 
to be made Indian agent, that they had better get themselves in the position of Indians, 
so as to avoid taxation, and get the Government to make appropriations for their 
benefit. That was a man named John Ward, and he was finally appointed Indian 
agent for them and remained their agent for a long time. He* spoke the Spanish 
language and insinuated himself into their good opinion to such an extent that he 
was enabled to influence them sufficiently to carry them according to his wishes in 
that matter. Even since 1852 they have voted and held office in some parts of New 
Mexico, and have at several times served on the grand juries and petit juries. They 
have never been taxed in New Mexico, but that has been because it has been con¬ 
sidered that their lands, except small segregated parcels held for culture and horses, 
belonged to a municipality, and all municipal lands were exempted from taxation 
under the laws of New Mexico, and they have always had until the last few years 
$300 of exemption from taxation, but during the last 8 or 10 years that exemption has 
been reduced to $200 for every head of a family, and that is the law now, so that no 
Pueblo Indian pays taxes, although several of them are worth several thousands of 
dollars in real and personal property. 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Ritchie (17 How., 525), 
speaking of the Indians of Mexico, said: 

“The Indian race having participated largely in the struggles resulting in the over¬ 
throw of the Spanish power and in the erection of an independent government, it 
was natural that political and social distinction in favor of the European or Spanish 
blood should be abolished and the equality of rights and privileges established. 
Hence the articles to this effect in the plan of Iguala and the decree of the first con¬ 
gress declaring the equality of civil rights, whatever may be their race or country. 
These solemn declarations of the political power of the Government had the effect 
necessarily to invest the Indians with the privileges of citizenship as effectually as 
had the declaration of independence of the United States of 1776, to invest all those 
persons with these privileges residing in the country at the time, and who adhered 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


81 


to the interest of the colonies. * * * But as a r a ce we think it impossible to deny 
that, under the Constitution and laws of the country, no distinction was made as to 
the rights of citizenship and the privileges belonging to it between this and European 
or Spanish blood. Equality between them, as we have seen, has been repeatedly 
affirmed in the most solemn acts of the Government. Solano, the grantee in this case, 
was a civilized Indian; was a principal chief of his race on the frontiers of California; 
held a captain’s commission in the Mexican Army, and is spoken of by the witnesses 
as a true and meritorious officer. Our conclusion is that he was one of the citizens of 
the Mexican government at the time of the grant to him, and that, as such, he was 
competent to take, hold, and convey real p roper ty the same as any other citizen of 
the republic.” 

The Supreme Court of New Mexico, irbUnited St ates v. L ucero (1 N. Mex., 423), in 
a very thoroughly considered opinion goes fully into the relations of the Pueblo 
Indians to the Republic of Mexico and to the Government of the United States and 
holds that they were citizens of the United States and not to be considered in any 
sense of the word as Indiam under the Indian intercourse act. On page 430 of that 
volume the court said : 

“The Spanish scholar will not fail to remember that when Sp anish law boo ks and 
Spanish legislators speak of Indians they mean that civilized race of people who live 
in towns and cultivate the soil, and are often mentioned as naturales and pueblos, 
natives of the towns and as Indios del pueblos—Indians of the towns; and for the 
other distinct and separate class of Indians whose daily occupation was war, robbery, 
and theft carried on against the Pueblo Indians, as well as the Spaniards, the term 
“savages” (salvajes) or barbarous Indians (Indios barbaros), was the expression used.” 

On page 431 (id.) the court said: 

“That in speaking of the Indians (therein) no reference was had, or intended to be 
had, to the Pueblo Indians, for the term is tribus salvajes (savage tribes). (This was 
in reference to the elev enth arti cle of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which refers to 
Indians and their acts'and doings.) When the term ‘Indians’ is used in our acts of 
Congress, it means that savage and roaming race of red men given to war and the chase 
for a living, and wholly ignorant of the pursuits of civilized man, for the simple reason 
that when those laws had been enacted no such class of Indians as the Pueblo Indians 
of New Mexico existed within the existing limits of the United States. 'Neither the 
Spanish Crown, its viceroys in the new world, nor the Mexican Republic ever legislated 
for the savage class of Indians.LLJ 

On page 432 the court said: 

“The act of the 9th of April, 1823, reaffirms the three guaranties of the plan of Iguala: 
(1) Independence of New Spain, (2) the perpetuity of the Catholic religion, and (3) 
the union of all Mexicans of whatever race. It will thus be seen that the Indian race 
of Mexico and that portlBIi, aiid' A V&st porUoh; of the inhabitants to whom that term 
was properly applicable were recognized as citizens of the Republic of Mexico in 
all her plans»of_government and acts of solemn obligation putting into practical oper¬ 
ation that plan. • Now, if there is no law of the Republic of Mexico (and we are unable 
to find any)’taking away the rights of citizenship with which the Indian race was 
invested as far back as the 24th of February, 1821, the conclusion is forced upon us 
that they (the Indian race) were in fact Mexican citizens at the date of the treaty 
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and are entitled to the benefit of all the articles in said treaty 
designed to protect the life, religion, and property of Mexicans under the new sov¬ 
ereign in whose hands the destinies of war had placed them. 

“If the Republic of Mexico has never passed any act taking away from the Indians 
their rights of citizenship, it must be evident that at the date of the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo the Indian ra ce, in the Spanish sense of the term, were as much and fully 
citizens of the Republic of Mexico as Europeans or Africans.” 

That decision was never appealed from and stands as final and binding. It was 
rendered in January, 1869, and ever since that time the rights of the Pueblo Indians, 
so far as the territorial government of New Mexico was concerned, were made to conform 
to it until a few years ago Congress enacted that the Pueblo Indians in the Territory 
of New Mexico should be exempted from taxation. 

The Lucero case was one in which the Government commenced suit against Lucero 
for the recovery of a forfeiture to the United States on account of his having settled 
upon Indian lands in Indian country. In volume 4, United States Statutes at Large, 
page 730, section 11, it reads: 

“ And be it further enacted , That if any person shall make a settlement on any lands 
belonging, secured, or granted by treaty with the United States to any Indian tribe, 
or shall survey or attempt to survey such lands, or designate the boundaries by marking 
trees or otherwise, such offender shall forfeit and pay the sum of $1,000.” 


80874—13-6 





82 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Another suit was subsequently instituted in the district court of the Territory of 
New Mexico by the United States against Anthony Joseph, also one against John 
Sansisteven, which will be found in the First New Mexico. These suits were brought 
under the same act above quoted, that of June 30, 1854. In these cases it was said: 

“It seems clear that the Indian tribes, to which these acts of Congress can only 
apply, are such as may be classed as distinct, independent, domestic nations, having 
and maintaining distinct tribal organizations, capable of maintaining the relations : 
of peace and war; who maintain their own natural rights, including that of governing, 
themselves as independent political communities, and who, as such independent 
political communities, hold only treaty relations with the United States very much 
on the footing of quasi foreign nations. The only other relations are such as the 
United States may gratuitously assume—as a superior power and as a protectorate. 
All those relations are expressly indicated by the act referred to, and the various 
adjudications in reference to the class of Indian tribes embraced in such acts. 

“It would seem to follow from these relations that contracts and conveyances can 
be entered into and made between such communities and the Government only by 
treaty and, therefore, that the only way in which the United States can contract 
with these independent domestic nations, whereby public lands can be secured or 
granted to them, is by or under a treaty. (This wasm 1874.) As soon as these rela¬ 
tions cease to exist they lose their character and identity as distinct and independent 
political communities, and at once become merged in and identified with our own 
body politic, subject and amenable to our laws, and can no longer be considered as 
wards of the Government. 

“There is another distinguishing feature, whereby the Indian tribes, to which 
the statute can only apply, may be identified, and that is they must be Indian tribes 
with whom all intercourse must be carried on exclusively by or under the direction 
of the General Government 

“One of the questions to be determined is whether, from the term ‘Pueblo tribe 
of Indians’ of a certain designated ‘pueblo,’ in the absence of any other descriptive 
allegation in the declaration, the court can rightfully infer that it is such an ‘Indian 
tribe ’ as is covered by the statute, and between whom and the general Government 
the distinctive relations I have pointed out necessarily subsist. The words of the 
statute are ‘Indian tribe’; the words of the declaration are ‘Pueblo tribe of Indians 
of a pueblo.’ A word is here used in pleading that is unknown to the English language, 
except by common consent as descriptive of these peculiar Indian communities and 
their places of abode. The Spanish word ‘pueblo’ originally applied to these com¬ 
munities by Spain, whose subjects they formerly were, and for a purpose, is some¬ 
thing more than a mere name, such as Apache, Comanche, or Navajo. Pueblo, as- 
defined in the Spanish language, signifies inhabited town or village, and in the plural 
is used to designate either towns or the inhabitants of towns. As applied to those 
Indian communities it is significantly descriptive of a race and their habitations, 
which plainly distinguishes them from the nomadic tribes in their habits. As thus 
applied, it has a popular and well-defined signification in New Mexico.” 

This last decision also recognizes the fact that the Pueblo Indians were citizens of 
the Republic of Mexico and by operation of the treaty of Mexico, of 1848, became 
citizens of the United States. This decision is also instructive and your attention* 
is invited to its careful consideration. 

The case last mentioned was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and 
will be found in 94 United States, 615. The United States Supreme Court says in 
that case: 

“Were the Pueblo Indians, and the lands held by them on which this settlement 
was made, within the meaning of the act of Congress of 1834, and its extension to the 
Territory of New Mexico, by the act of 1851? This question resolves itself into two 
others: 1. Are the people who constituted he pueblo or village of Taos an Indian tribe 
within the meaning of the statute? 2. Do they hold the lands on which the settle¬ 
ment mentioned in the petition was made by a tenure which brings them within its 
terms? * * * 

“The character and history of these people are not obscure, but occupy a well- 
known page in the story of Mexico, from the conquest of the country by Cortez to the 
cession of this part of it to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

“For centuries the Pueblo Indians have lived in villages, in fixed communities, 
each having its own municipal or local government. As far as their history can be 
traced, they have been a pastoral and agricultural people, raising flocks and culti¬ 
vating the soil. Since the introduction of the Spanish Catholic missionaries into the 
country, they have adopted mainly not only the Spanish language but the religion 
of a Christian Church. In every pueblo is erected a church, dedicated to the worship 
of God, according to the form of the Roman Catholic religion, and in nearly all is to.. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


83 


be found a priest of this church, who is recognized as their spiritual guide and adviser. 
They manufacture nearly all of their blankets, clothing, agricultural and culinary 
implements, etc. Integrity and virtue among them is fostered and encouraged. 
They are as intelligent as most nations or people deprived of means or facilities for 
education. Their names, their customs, their habits, are similar to those of the people 
in whose midst they reside, or in the midst of whom their pueblos are situated. The 
criminal records of the courts of the Territory scarcely contain the name of a Pueblo 
Indian. In short, they are a peaceable, industrious, intelligent, honest, and virtuous 
people. They are Indians only in feature, complexion, and a few of their habits; 
m all other respects superior to all but a few of the civilized Indian tribes of the 
country, and the equal of the most civilized thereof. This description of the Pueblo 
Indians, I think, will be deemed by all who know them as faithful and true in all 
respects. Such was their character at the time of the acquisition of New Mexico by 
the United States, and such is their character now. 

“At the time the act of 1834 was passed there were no such Indians as these in the 
United States, unless it be one or two reservations or tribes, such as the Senecas or 
Oneidas of New York, to whom, it is clear, the eleventh section of the statute could 
have no application. When it became necessary to extend the laws regarding inter¬ 
course with the Indians over our new acquisitions from Mexico, there was ample 
room for the exercise of those laws among the nomadic Apaches, Comanches, Nava- 
joes, and other tribes whose incapacity for self-government required both for them¬ 
selves and for the citizens of the country this guardian care of the General Government. 

“The Pueblo Indians, if, indeed, they can be called Indians, had nothing in com¬ 
mon with this class. The degree of civilization which they had attained centuries 
before, their willing submission to all the laws of the Mexican Government, the full 
recognition by that Government of all their civil rights, including that of voting and 
holding office, and their absorption into the general mass of the population (except 
that they held their lands in common), all forbid the idea that they should be classed 
with the Indian tribes for whom the intercourse acts were made, or that in the intent 
of the act of 1851 its piovisions were applicable to them. The tribes for whom the 
act of 1834 was made were those semi-independent tribes whom our Government has 
always recognized as exempt from our laws, whether within or without the limits of 
an organized State or Territory, and, in regard to their domestic government, left to 
their own rules and traditions; in whom we have recognized the capacity to make 
treaties, and with whom the Governments, State and National, deal, with a few excep¬ 
tions only, in their national or tribal character, and not as individuals. 

“If the Pueblo Indians differ from the other inhabitants of New Mexico in holding 
lands in common, and in a certain patriarchal form of domestic life, they only resemble 
in this regard the Shakers and ether communistic societies in this country, and 
can not for that reason be classed with the Indian tribes of whom we have been 
speaking. ” 

A number of other decisions have been rendered, both by the Federal courts and 
that of the Territory of New Mexico, recognizing these Indians as citizens of the 
United States. It seems that it is impossible to make them out as anything but 
citizens of the United States, except that there seems to be a disposition in the Indian 
Bureau to make them Indians in accordance with the terms of the Indian intercourse 
act; but when a person is once a citizen of the United States unless he renounces his 
citizenship and becomes a citizen of some other country or Government, he retains his 
citizenship wherever he may be. These Indians have never done that. They are 
willing, it seems, for the Government to appoint attorneys and agents to look after their 
general welfare and protect them from outside harm and injury, especially if they do 
not have to pay the expenses cf such protection or such guardianship; and most any 
other person would be willing to do that. They being citizens of the United States and 
not in any manner subject to the Indian intercourse act, which is sufficient reason 
why the Government has no authoritv whatever nor has the State of New Mexico any 
authoritv whatever to treat them as Indians under the Indian intercourse act. 

The next proposition to be discussed is, are the lands of these Indians known as 
Indian country or are they reservations for the use of the Indians with the title in 
the Government of the United States; or do their lands occupy the same relation to 
these Indians and to the Government of the United States as the lands which are set 
apart for Indians under the Indian intercourse act ? We understand that they are 
not in any sense of the word such lands. 

On the organization of New Mexico as a Territory in 1850 the first legislature passed 
an act declaring that all the pueblos of New Mexico should be incorporations under 
the style of the “Pueblo of -——. ” These pueblos have a local government corre¬ 
sponding with that of a city government; they have a governor who corresponds to a 
mayor; they have a cacique who corresponds to a justice of the peace, who is the 


84 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


judicial officer; they have a consul who corresponds to a marshal, and they have a 
war captain who corresponds to a marshal, and are subject to all the State laws. Prior 
to the conquest of New Mexico by Cortez they were organized communities under 
the Empire of Montezuma, subject to his rule of government; they lived in towns and 
in houses and cultivated the soil then just as they do to-day. 

In 1689 the Spanish Government, which had about that time been overthrown by 
the Indians in New Mexico and expelled from the State, on reconquering the country, 
made grants to the various Indian pueblos which were within the then provinces of 
New Mexico that had been reconquered, and there being about 21 or 22 of these 
pueblos. Each of the said grants was made about the same time and was in about 
the same language. The case of the United States v. Lucero (1 N. Mex., p. 445) shows 
a copy of one of these grants, and they are all exactly alike as I have compared them 
individually. There they were spoken of in the grant made to them as being rebels 
against the Government, in no sense of the word as being savage Indians or savages, 
or barbarians. To each of these pueblos there was granted by the Kingdom of Spain, 
at that time, land amounting to 4 Spanish leagues, or 2 leagues square, with a 
church which was to be erected as the center. These grants were afterwards, on the 
22d day of December, 1858, by an act of Congress of the United States, confirmed 
to each one of these pueblos, and a patent was issued to the pueblo by the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States in fee simple. 

The Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, in the case of the United States v. 
Varela (1 N. Mex., 600), said: 

“It is a noticeable fact that Congress considered these pueblo land claims, con¬ 
firmed them, and divested all title and claim thereto of the United States, without 
any treaty, or in any manner recognizing these pueblos as independent domestic 
nations; but, on the contrary, considered and disposed of these claims in connection 
with and on the same footing as other Spanish land-grant claims of Spanish or Mexican 
towns. The public recognition in this way of these pueblos to me seems very signifi¬ 
cant and to pieclude the presumption that they are Indian tribes, to whom or to whose 
lands, these penal nonintercourse laws can apply.” 

On page 601, in the last referred to decision, at the bottom, the court said: 

“I now come to the class of lands to which the act of the 30th of June, 1834, can 
only apply. These lands, in my opinion, must be embraced in what by that act is 
designated as ‘Indian country.’ This ‘Indian country,’ under the laws of the United 
States, embraces only territory which, though sometimes located within, is completely 
set apart from, and forms no part of any of the States or organized Territories; and 
within the territory thus set apart, all intercourse with the Indians must be carried 
on exclusively by" the General Government. Under the Federal laws, two classes 
of lands only can be included in ‘Indian country:’ One class comprehends those wild 
and unreclaimed regions west of the Mississippi River, which at the time of the passage 
of the act of the 30th of June. 1834, were and had been from time immemorial, in the 
occupation of various nomadic Indian tribes. The lands within these unreclaimed 
regions, and thus occupied, were regarded by the Government as ‘belonging’ to the 
Indians, and in the meaning of the act. this is the only way in which lands can be 
considered as ‘belonging’ to Indians, except by treaty. The other class of lands 
designated as ‘ Indian country ’ are such as are denominated Indian reservations, which 
have been set apart under treaty stipulations, by definite boundaries, for the exclusive 
occupation of certain tribes.” 

And I call attention to the fact that in the last few years they have been set aside 
by departmental orders to Indians. But no land which has ever "been given to Indians 
as Indian lands, or set apart by them for reservations has ever been given to them in 
fee. They have never had the right either in their tribal condition or in any other 
way to dispose of any of those lands or even to give consent to any person to go upon 
the lands, not even a trader, without the consent of the Government of the United 
States. The lands never belonged to them, but the fee to the same was held by the 
United States in trust for the use of those Indians. 

In the case of the United States v. Joseph (94 U. S., 618), which is the decision last 
referred to and which was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is 
said: 

“Turning our attention to the tenure by which these communities hold the land 
on which the settlement of defendant was made, we find that it is wholly different from 
that of the Indian tribes to whom the act of Congress applies. The" United States 
have not recognized in these latter any other than a passing title with right of use, 
until by treaty or otherwise that right is extinguished. And the ultimate title has 
been always held to be in the United States, with no right in the Indians to transfer it, 
or even their possession, without consent of the Government. 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 85 


“It is this fixed claim of dominion which lies at the foundation of the act forbidding 
the white man to make a settlement on the lands occupied by an Indian tribe. 

“The pueblo Indians, on the contrary, hold their lands by a right superior to that 
of the United States. Their title dates back to grants made by the Government of 
Spain before the Mexican revolution—a title which was fully recognized by the Mexi¬ 
can Government and protected by it in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which 
this country and the allegiance of its inhabitants were transferred to the United States. 

“With the purpose of carrying into effect this provision of that treaty, Congress 
directed the surveyor general of New Mexico to make inquiry into all grants of the 
Spanish and Mexican Governments, and to report to that body on their validity. 
Such reports were made from time to time, one of which included, and recommended 
for confirmation, this claim of the pueblo of Taos (similar to those of Santa Clara, San 
Juan, and San Eldefenso), in the county of Taos and not the pueblo Indians of Taos, 
but the pueblo of Taos; and by an act of Congress of December 22,1858 (11 Stats. 374), 
the title was confirmed, and the Commissioner of the Land Office ordered to ‘issue the 
necessary instructions for the survey of all of said claims, as recommended for confirma¬ 
tion by the said surveyor-general, and to cause a patent to issue therefor, as in ordinary 
cases to private individuals: Provided , That this confirmation shall only be construed 
as a relinquishment of all title and claim of the United States to any of said lands, 
and shall not affect any adverse valid right, should such exist.’ ” 

The case of the United States v. Joseph was brought in regard to his having settled 
upon the land within the pueblo of Taos, which was one of the same pueblos whose 
land was confirmed under the act of December 22, 1858, the Supreme Court in that 
case further saying (p. 619): 

“It is unnecessary to waste words to prove that this was a recognition of the title 
previously held by these people, and a disclaimer by the Government of any right of 
present or future interference, except such as would be exercised in the case of a per¬ 
son holding a competent and perfect title in his individual right. 

“If the defendant is on the lands of the pueblo, without the consent of the inhabi¬ 
tants, he may be ejected, or punished civilly by a suit for trespass, according to the 
laws regulating such matters in the Territory. If he is there with their consent or 
license, we know of no injury which the United States suffers by his presence, nor any 
statute which he violates in that regard.” 

This last decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be conclusive 
on this question. 

The Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico in Territory v. Delinquent Tax 
Payers (12 N. Mex., 145 et seq.), referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Joseph (94 U. S., 618), after quoting from that deci¬ 
sion, say: 

“We conclude, therefore, that the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico are citizens of 
New Mexico and of the United States; hold their lands with full power of alienation, 
and are, as such, subject to taxation.” 

Your attention is invited to that case. 

It will be noticed that the supreme court says that any proceedings which should be 
commenced to remedy any wrong should be brought under the laws regulating such 
matters in the Territory, and not under the statutes of the United States. And they 
state immediately following that if he is there by the consent of the Pueblos no injury 
occurs to the United States by his presence, nor is there any statute which he violates 
in that regard. If he is not there by their consent, they must proceed according to 
the laws of the statute in New Mexico. If there by their consent, they must abide 
by the consent. 

It will be noticed that the Supreme Court of New Mexico in the case against Lucero 
calls attention to the fact that the Indians of the pueblo of Cochiti, similar to the ones 
in question, which tract of land was confirmed at the same time, sold and con¬ 
veyed a portion of their land to the people residing in the town of Pena Blanca, then 
in the County of Santa Ana in the Territory of New Mexico; that the supreme court 
of Guadalajara in 1816 annulled the sale by those Indians and that afterwards the 
supreme government of Mexico, after the separation from old Spain, confirmed the 
said sale. Ever since these pueblos have been organized, and their lands under the 
Spanish, Mexican, and United States Governments they have been allowed to make 
sales, transfers, and conveyances of the particular tracts of land belonging to the 
community. These lands are held, as the Indian Bureau must well know, by the 
Pueblos as common lands; but they were given for the purpose of the support of those 
Indians as citizens; they occupied them, built their houses in a town on them, and 
cultivated the lands round about the town that were capable of cultivation, each 
Indian being assigned or given a particular strip of land to occupy, use, and own as 
his individual property, free from hindrance of any Indian or anyone else. These 


86 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


Indians so taking these strips or pieces of land always claimed them as their own, 
claimed title to them, and under the laws their title by prescription eventually 
ripening into an absolute title free from the control or dominion of the pueblo, as com¬ 
munity lands. These different tracts or pieces of land have been from time to time 
transferred from one Indian to another and from an Indian to the other people,they 
being recognized at all times as citizens with the right to transfer and convey their 
lands the same as any other people; and many tracts of land have within the limits of 
the pueblo been also transferred and conveyed by their council and governor who was 
their administrative body, and titles have been given by such councils and gov¬ 
ernors to different individuals, Indians as well as other persons who were' not of the 
pueblo. These other persons have taken possession of them, used, handled, and 
managed them for many years, whereof the memory of man runneth not to the con¬ 
trary, and have thus acquired title not only under such conveyances as were given, 
but under prescription of the statute of limitations of the Territory of New Mexico, 
which provides among other things that where any party holds land for a period of ten 
years, claiming the same as his own, he acquires an absolute title to it and can not 
be divested of it, and has dominion over it. This was held in a decision which has 
been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Probst v. 
the Presbyterian Church. That was not a Pueblo Indian case, but was a case in the 
city of Santa Fe, N. Mex., and which defines the law and the effect of the law of the 
Territory of New Mexico as to acquiring title by and under the statute of limitations. 
It will be found in 129 United States, 182. 

These Indians have conveyed many pieces of their land to individuals. The pueblo 
of Santa Clara contains within the limits of its original grant and of its patent the town 
of Espanola, on which a depot of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad is situate. That 
town has been occupied by that depot for more than 30 years, and people have been 
residing in that town for more than 150 years who do not belong to the puelbo of Santa 
Clara. They have occupied the lands within the limits of the town just about a mile 
or a mile and a half from the town of the pueblo and have cultivated lands round 
about it, claiming them as their own. Other grants have been made by the Govern¬ 
ment covering identically the same land, and the land has been occupied under these 
grants, one being the Bartolome Sanchez grant. The people of the town of Espanola 
and those under whom they claim have occupied those lands for more than 200 years, 
claiming the same as their own, recognized as the owners thereof by the pueblo of 
Santa Clara, and never interfered with or questioned. Nor does the pueblo of Santa 
Clara to this day question the right or title to this land. They claim the right to 
administer and dispose of their lands as they deem fit, without interference either 
by the Territorial government or the United States Government; and that same 
pueblo some 20 or more years ago conveyed a considerable portion of its land, 
through its council and governor, lying on the east side of the Rio Grande oppo¬ 
site to where their town and settlement and cultivated lands were. Afterwards 
suit was brought to quiet the title under that conveyance and it was held in that 
case in the district court, the suit being brought by E. C. Hobart, former surveyor 
general of New Mexico, that the title to the lands had been acquired by the con¬ 
veyance as well as by prescription, Mr. Hobart having occupied a small portion of 
the said lands, claiming title to the whole mentioned in the deed of conveyance to 
him under the said deed of conveyance. That suit was not brought by the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States, but was brought by Hobart to quiet his title as against 
the Indians, and it was defended by the United States attorney, a decision having 
been rendered in favor of Mr. Hobart that he had acquired title by means of the 
conveyance to him as well as by means of his occupation of a part under claim of a 
right to the ownership of title. The land which has been conveyed by any of the 
pueblos to any individual Indian or to any other individual or which any individual 
has occupied for the period of 10 years exclusively, continuously, and adversely, 
claiming the same as his own during that time, ceases to belong to the pueblo or to 
the Indian who conveyed it and is no part of their lands, but is private property 
belonging to the individual who occupies it and claims it for that length of time. 
This is the status with reference to the lands in Espanola, which is within the exterior 
limits of the Santa Clara grant on which the depot of the Denver & Rio Grande 
Railroad, various stores, business houses, and dwellings of people who do not belong 
to the Pueblo Indians are situate. 

It is contended that by virtue of the act of the Congress of the United States ap¬ 
proved June 20, 1910, to enable the people of New Mexico to form a constitution 
and State government and be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the 
original States, it was provided that the constitution of the State should contain a 
compact with the United States by virtue of which the State of New Mexico should 
forever disclaim the right and title to all lands lying within the boundaries of the 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


87 


■State or held by any of the Indians or Indian tribes, the right or title to which should 
have been acquired through the United States or any prior sovereignty, and that 
such lands until the title of the said Indians should be extinguished should remain 
subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction of the courts of the 
United States; and, also, that such constitution should contain a compact by virtue 
of which Indian country should include lands owned or occupied by the Pueblo 
Indians of New Mexico. Said act of Congress was approved and provided further 
that the said constitution which was adopted and under which New Mexico was 
admitted as a State should contain said provisions. It is then claimed that there¬ 
upon all the lands owned by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico on the 20th day 
of June, 1910, became Indian country within the meaning of the laws of the United 
States. It is not questioned that such requirement was contained in the enabling 
act; that the constitution of New Mexico did incorporate same in its constitution, 
but it is shown by the constitution itself that it was incorporated because of “the 
requirements of the enabling act” with which New Mexico had to comply or not 
be admitted into the Union. Attention is called to the fact that that provision in 
the enabling act only required the State to disclaim all right and title to all lands 
lying within the boundaries of the State “owned and held” by any Indian or Indian 
tribes, the right or title to which shall have been secured through the United States 
or any prior sovereignty, and that such lands until the title of said Indian should 
be extinguished should remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute 
jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. 

In view of the fact under the law as it has been set out above that the title to lands 
which had been occupied under a claim of right for more than 10 years continuously, 
adversely, and exclusively became under the laws of the Territory of New Mexico 
the property of such occupants or claimants, it can not be claimed that the lands 
within the town of Espanola which have been occupied under a claim of right for 
more than 200 years, adverse to the claim of the Pueblo Indians of Santa Clara, is 
owned or held by those Indians. There is no doubt but that the lands never belonged 
to the United States. They were granted by Spain, before the United States Gov¬ 
ernment was ever formed, to the Pueblo of Santa Clara. They were afterwards rec¬ 
ognized as belonging to them by the Republic of Mexico, and most formally recognized 
and confirmed to the pueblo of Santa Clara in absolute fee-simple title without any 
conditions attached to it whatever by the Congress of the United States, and by its 
solemn patent issued to such pueblo, wherein the Government absolutely relinquished 
and conveyed by quitclaim to the said Indians all of the lands in said grant, thus 
separating the land entirely from the control of the Government of the United States 
and the public domain of the United States. While the lands in Espanola are within 
the exterior boundaries of the original grant made by the Government of Spain, they 
have been segregated from the ownership of the pueblo for 200 years and have been 
in the ownership of private individuals under the laws of Spain and under the laws 
of Mexico and under the laws of the Territory of New Mexico and of every other State 
and Government in which those lands have been situate. The title has, by means of 
prescription and the statute of limitations, ceased to be a part of the title of lands 
belonging to the pueblo of Santa Clara. It is the Pueblo Indians who constitute the 
pueblo. It is not the land which makes the pueblo, but it is the land which constitute 
their holdings, and this argument applies to every other pueblo grant in the State of 
New Mexico under similar conditions, and in every one of the pueblos the lands 
thereof have in part been sold and transferred to other individuals and occupied and 
held for not 10 years only, but for a century or more, without any complaint or objec¬ 
tion on the part of any of the Indians. 

If inquiry should be made of the Indians of Santa Clara by any honest, upright agent 
who would not first instruct them to state that they claimed the lands, whether they 
claimed or owned those lands in the town of Espanola, without probably an exception, 
they would say no; that they did not claim them and never had claimed them; that 
they had for the last century, at least, belonged to the people of the town of Espanola. 
Those lands also cross the river in the town of Santa Cruz, which is on the east side of 
the Rio Grande, Espanola being on the west side, also fall within the limit of that 
pueblo grant. Under the decision of the United States x. Joseph (94 U. S., 614, et 
supra) the court in that case says on page 619: 

“If the defendant is on the lands of the pueblo, without the consent of the inhabit¬ 
ants, he may be ejected, or punished civilly by a suit for trespass, according to the 
laws regulating such matters in the Territory. If he is there with their consent or 
license, we know of no injury whicli the United States suffers by his presence nor any 
statute which he violates in that regard.” 

Thus establishing specifically by the decrees of that court that the only remedy 
which can be had would be a suit in ejectment to dispossess the party or an action of 


88 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


trespass, but that no statute of the United States could be invoked as having been 
violated by means of the occupancy of these people on the lands within the limits 
of any pueblo which had been occupied by other people than themselves, belonging 
to the pueblo as a corporation. If the provisions under the enabling act and under 
the Constitution are binding (which they are not because they are contrary to the 
Constitution of the United States), still those provisions only apply to such lands as 
actually “belong” to the pueblo and not to lands which have once belonged to the 
pueblo but have been transferred by deed or the title to which have been acquired 
by means of limitation or prescription, as in the case of Espanola and almost all the 
others. But we insist that the provision in the enabling act and the compact in the 
Constitution of the State of New Mexico which was placed there by the convention 
which formed that constitution practically under duress in order to obtain statehood 
and without doing wdiich they could not have obtained it, is invalid under the pro¬ 
visions of the Constitution of the United States. It will be noticed by an examina¬ 
tion of the Constitution of New Mexico under Article XXI, entitled “Compact with 
the United States,” that that article starts out with the words, “In compliance with 
the requirements of the Act of Congress, entitled “An act to enable the people of New 
Mexico to form a constitution and State Government and to be admitted into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States,” etc.; and it is under that heading 
and preamble that the clause was inserted in the Constitution of the State, showing 
what it did w T as simply by virtue of the requirements of the enabling act and to comply 
with the same so as to be admitted into the Union as a State, otherwise New Mexico 
would not have been admitted. 

In the Constitution of the United States, Article IX states: 

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to 
deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

And Article X states: 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited 
by it to the States are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” 

There is no power whatever conferred by the Constitution of the United States 
on the United States authorizing it to undertake to regulate, manage, and control 
private property and the administration of private property in any one of the States. 
Such matters as that pertain to the State and its legislature alone. The State itself, 
under the Constitution, can not confer that power upon Congress, because the tenth 
amendment, above quoted, expressly reserves those powers to the State, and it has 
been held repeatedly that a power which has been reserved to the State and not 
given to the United States can not by the State be given away to the Government of 
the United States, because that would place the States upon a footing which would not 
be equal with each other. The power of the State, it has been determined, must be 
equal each State with the other throughout the entire Union and no State can disturb 
that, neither can the United States disturb that without an amendment to the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States. If these lands which were granted to the Pueblo Indians 
by Spain, recognized by Mexico and ratified and confirmed and patented by the 
United States in fee simple title to the Pueblo Indians, are not private property as 
contradistinguished from public property of the United States, then my idea of 
private property has been at fault and is at fault; in my judgment it is not at fault; 
I know it is not at fault. These lands have as much been segregated from the domain 
and control of the United States and from its jurisdiction over them as the land which 
has been patented to any homesteader in the United States and which has been dis¬ 
posed of by that homesteader to an innocent purchaser. That being the case, it is 
impossible for the State, even though it might not be under constraint to do so as in 
this case, to turn over the jurisdiction, management, and control of these lands to the 
Government of the United States instead of reserving the same to themselves and to 
the people of the State under the laws of the State. Such requirement has never 
been made of any other State except Arizona; probably Utah. 

In the case of Coyle v. Oklahoma (221 U. S.), which was a case wherein the courts 
had required, as it did in New Mexico, that that State should enter into a compact 
that the capitol of the State should remain at Guthrie for a certain length of time, 
the court said, speaking of the provision of the Constitution with reference to the 
admission of new States: 

“By what is this power? It is not to admit political organizations which are less 
or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those political entities which consti¬ 
tute the Union. * * *” 

“The definition of ‘a State’ is found in the powers possessed by the original States 
which adopted the Constitution, a definition emphasized by the terms employed in 
all subsequent acts of Congress admitting new States into the Union. The first two 
States admitted into the Union were the States of Vermont and Kentucky, one as 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


89 


of March 4,1791, and the other as of June 1,1792. No terms or conditions were exacted 
from either. Each act declares that the State is admitted ‘as a new and entire member 
of the United States of America.’ (1 Stat., 189, 191.) Emphatic and significant as 
is the phrase admitted as ‘an entire member,’ even stronger was the declaration upon 
the admission in 1796 of Tennessee, as the third new State, it being declared to be 
one of the United States of America,’ ‘on an equal footing with the original States 
in all respects whatsoever, ’ phraseology which has ever since been substantially 
followed in admission acts, concluding with the Oklahoma act, which declares that 
Oklahoma shall be admitted ‘on an equal footing with the original States.’ 
******* 

“This Union was and is a Union of States equal in power, dignity, and authority, 
each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution inself. To maintain otherwise would be to say that the 
Union, through the power of Congress to admit new States, might come to be a Union 
of States unequal in power, as including States whose powers were restricted only by 
the Constitution, with others whose powers had been further restricted by an act of 
Congress accepted as a condition of admission. Thus it would result, first, that the 
powers of Congress would not be defined by the Constitution alone, but in respect to 
new States enlarged or restricted by the conditions imposed upon new States by its 
own legislation admitting them into the Union; and, second, that such new States 
might not exercise all of the powers which had not been delegated by the Constitution, 
but only such as had not been further bargained away as conditions of admission.” 

This language is exceedingly pertinent. It shows that any conditions of admission 
on a State can not be imposed. In many instances the States have been required to 
renounce all their claim to the public land in the States, but that was surplusage only. 
The public lands belong to the United States, and the States never owned them, and 
the renouncing of a thing they never owned did not change the status. Congress did 
have the power to require that each State should be republican in form, as that was a 
provision of the Constitution of the United States. By an act of Congress of February 
20, 1811, the people of the Territory of Orleans were empowered to form a constitu¬ 
tional State government, which resulted in the State of Louisiana. The third section 
of that act prescribed, among other things, that it should “contain the fundamental 
principles of civil and religious liberty.” The act of Congress admitting it recites 
that all the conditions and terms contained in said third section should be considered 
and taken as fundamental conditions and terms upon which the said State is incor¬ 
porated into the Union. Afterwards it was claimed that a certain municipal ordinance 
was in violation of religious liberty, and therefore void under the act in which the 
State had been admitted into the Union. In considering these terms of the enabling 
act and the act admitting the State of Louisiana, in regard to the contents of the Con¬ 
stitution, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice 
Catron, said: 

“All Congress intended was to declare in advance to the people of the Territory the 
fundamental principles their constitution should contain; this was every way proper 
under the circumstances; the instrument having been duly formed and presented, it 
was for the National Legislature to judge whether it contained the proper principles, 
and to accept it if it did, or reject it if it did not. Having accepted the constitution 
and admitted the State ‘on an equal footing with the original States in all respects 
whatever,’ in express terms, by the act of 1812, Congress was concluded from assum¬ 
ing that the instructions contained in the act of 1811 had not been complied with. 
No fundamental principles could be added by way of amendment, as this would have 
been making part of the State constitution; if Congress could make it in part, it might, 
in the form of amendment, make it entire. The conditions and terms referred to in 
the act of 1812 could only relate to the stipulations contained in the second proviso 
of the act of 1811, involving rights of property and navigation, and in our opinion 
were not otherwise intended. The reference by Justice Catron to the terms and con¬ 
ditions in act of 1812 is to a provision in the act of February 20, 1811 (2 Stat., 641, 
642), quite common in enabling acts, by which the new State disclaimed title to the 
public lands and stipulated that such lands should remain subject to the sole dispo¬ 
sition of the United States, and for their exemption from taxation, and that its navi¬ 
gable waters should forever remain open and free, etc. Such stipulations, as we shall 
see, being within the sphere of congressional power, can derive no force from the 
consent of the State. Like stipulations, as well as others in respect to the control by 
the United States of large Indian reservations and Indian population of the new State, 
are found in the Oklahoma enabling act. Whatever force such provisions have after 
the admission of the State may be attributed to the power of Congress over the sub¬ 
jects derived from other provisions of the Constitution rather than from any consent 
by or compact with the State.” 


'90 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


The court also says, in page 570, in Coyle v. Oklahoma, et supra: 

“So far as this court has found occasion to advert to the effect of enabling acts as 
affirmative legislation affecting the power of new States after admission, there is to 
be found no sanction for the contention that any State may be deprived of any of the 
power constitutionally possessed by other States, as States, by reason of the terms in 
which the acts admitting them to the Union have been framed.” 

That decision is quite instructive, and much more is said therein to the same effect 
as that which has been quoted. 

In Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S., 82) the court said, speaking of the United States 
Government: 

“This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The 
principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent 
to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, 
which it was depending upon before the people, found it necessary to urge.” 

The case last mentioned was one in which the State of Kansas brought suit against 
the State of Colorado to enjoin that State from diverting the waters of the Arkansas 
River so as to deprive residents of the State of Kansas, who had already appropriated 
the waters from the use of the same. In that case the United States, claiming to have 
control over all those waters of the States and the right to their disposition, intervened 
and set up such rights. On page 97 in the same case, Kansas v. Colorado, et supra, the 
court said: 

“One cardinal rule, underlying all the relations of the States to each other, is that 
of equality of right. Each State stands on the same level with all the rest. It can 
impose its own legislation on no one of the others, and is bound to yield its own views 
to none.” 

On page 90 of the same decision the court says: 

“Article X (of the constitutional amendments) reserved to the people of all the 
States the powers not delegated to the United States. The powers affecting.the in¬ 
ternal affairs of the States not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, and all powers 
of a national character which are not delegated to the National Government by the 
Constitution are reserved to the people of the United States.” 

In the same case the Supreme Court says: 

“The Government of the United States is one of enumerated powers; that it has 
no inherent power of sovereignty; that the enumeration of the powers granted is to 
be found in the Constitution of the United States, and in that alone; that the manifest 
purpose of the tenth amendment to the Constitution is to put beyond dispute the 
proposition that all powers not granted are reserved to the people, and that if in the 
changes of the years further powers ought to be possessed by Congress, they must be 
obtained by a new grant from the people.” 

In that case the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the United States 
had no jurisdiction over the waters for irrigation in a State; that the States themselves 
controlled those waters under their legislation and that, therefore, the United States 
had no right to intervene in that case and attempt to assume control or jurisdiction in 
any manner over the watjrs flowing in a State. This is a case similar to the one in 
question. The lands belonging to private individuals in a State are subject entirely 
to regulation • in the State government. The United States has no power to go into 
a State and undertake to regulate how land shall be disposed of or transferred or used. 
(The only ground on which they can get into a State is under the interstate commerce 
law, and this is left entirely to matters of commerce between the different States and 
not to commerce entirely within the particular State.) 

We insist that the facts show that this land became private property under the 
Government of Spain when it was donated by Spain to the United States in fee. It 
remained private property under the Mexican Government, was private to the Indians 
in the possession thereof—I mean the Pueblo Indians; and did still continue to be 
private property when the Congress of the United States confirmed the grant made 
by Spain to the Pueblos, surveyed them and issued patents for the same, providing 
that the patents should be construed as a quitclaim of all the right, title and interest 
of the Government of the United States as the patents in those cases did. These are 
not such lands as the title to which is held in the Government and which are as Indian 
•country and held by the United States, but they are held like those of a homesteader 
who has acquired a patent in fee simple title from the United States. 

But we go further in this case. Not only has the Governments of Spain, Mexico, 
and the United States confirmed and recognized the absolute unqualified fee-simple 
title to those lands in the pueblos, but those lands have been conveyed for more than 
200 years to private individuals who do not belong to the pueblo, and have been occu¬ 
pied, held, and used as such during that period of time under a claim of right and 


PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO. 


91 


through the title as vested in such persons by the law of New Mexico, which is the 
only law that governs the disposition and control of those lands. What these laws 
require is an occupation of the land for the period of 10 years under a claim of right, 
which occupation or possession has been notorious, continuous, and adverse. In this 
case all of those conditions have existed, and in addition thereto the Indians have for 
200 years stood by and acquiesced in the possession and claim of title to those lands 
by the possessors and owners thereof, and do not claim to own or hold the same lands 
or any right or claim to them further than they may be instructed to do by means of 
their agents at this late period of time. We therefore insist: 

First. That the Indians known as Pueblo Indians are not Indians in the contempla¬ 
tion of the Indian intercourse act, but are citizens of the United States and of the 
State of New Mexico. 

Second. That the lands of those Indians are not such lands as are known as “Indian 
country ” or as come under the provisions of the Indian intercourse act, because they 
have been granted by Spain, ratified by Mexico, and confirmed and regranted by the 
Government of the United States to the Indians in fee simple, and are held segregated 
from the public domain, free from all conditions. 

Third. That these lands, title to which have been secured from the Indians by means 
of conveyance and adverse occupation openly, notoriously, adversely, and continu¬ 
ously for the period of more than 100 years, even up to the period of 200 years, are 
owned by and actually vested in the holders and occupants thereof, and this with the 
acquiesence and consent of those Indians themselves. 

The Chairman. This closes the hearing. 

Thereupon at 1 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned. 


X 































* 








































































Deacidifled using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing Agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: 



Cranberry Twp., PA 16066 
(412) 779-2111 


























library of congress 

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































